BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 March.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Legal Aid

Stephen Timms: What his future plans for legal aid are.

Paul Blomfield: What his future plans for legal aid are.

Andrew McDonald: What his future plans for legal aid are.

Shailesh Vara: We are implementing the reforms of litigation procurement and Crown court advocacy fees that we announced last month. Although making fee reductions is unavoidable, we have listened to the professions wherever we can and taken concrete steps to ease the impact of the changes. Moreover, the Justice Secretary has given a personal commitment that this Government will not seek further savings from criminal legal aid.
	The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency keep the operation of both the criminal and civil legal aid schemes under continual review. The Government plan to undertake a post-implementation review of the legal aid provisions within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within three to five years of implementation. That review will include an assessment of the impact of the reforms implemented during that period.

Stephen Timms: The cost of legal aid came in at £56 million less than was budgeted last year, and research commissioned by the Law Society from Oxford Economics
	argues that falling crime will reduce the legal aid bill by £80 million by 2018-19. What assessment has the Minister made of the argument that the spending cuts will be delivered without the scale of service reductions he is currently proposing?

Shailesh Vara: We need to look at the bigger picture and recognise that legal aid expenditure in this country—for England and Wales—is some £2 billion, which makes our system one of the most expensive in the world. Even after the reductions have gone through, the bill will still be one of the most generous in the world. We have to ensure that these reductions go through so that the legal aid budget remains sustainable.

Paul Blomfield: After a legal aid-funded judicial review of a negative reasonable grounds decision, the Home Office agreed that a Sheffield resident was a victim of trafficking. Under the new regime she would not pass the residence test for legal aid. The Government have been making much recently of their commitment to tackle human trafficking, so will they now reconsider their decision to reject the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to exempt from the residence test all cases where the status of a trafficking victim is contested?

Shailesh Vara: We have made it absolutely clear that for the residence test it is important that they are our people—that they have some link to this country. We have set out where there are exceptions, and that has been made abundantly clear.

Andrew McDonald: Is the Secretary of State worried by the increasing number of defendants in serious cases who cannot access legal advice following the 30% cut in advocates’ fees?

Shailesh Vara: It is important to put things into perspective. The 30% reduction applies to only a tiny number of criminal cases—they are called “very high cost cases” and constitute less than 1% of Crown court cases. The reductions we are making will ensure that the barristers who do that sort of work are still receiving good fee income.

Jonathan Djanogly: It is generally recognised that the criminal legal aid provider market is fragmented, underinvested and unsustainable, so has my hon. Friend yet been able to assess whether his reforms will lead to the necessary market consolidation?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend makes a good point: it is important to recognise that the legal market has changed and we need to change with it. We very much hope that our proposals will ensure that we have a sustainable legal aid budget which ensures that those who need legal aid assistance will be able to get it, from both solicitors and advocates.

David Nuttall: Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how much of the criminal legal aid budget is spent on cases where the defendant maintains they are innocent only to plead guilty at the last minute before the trial?

Shailesh Vara: I confess that off the top of my head I do not know what the figures are, but I will try to find out the relevant information and I will happily write to my hon. Friend.

Sarah Teather: In their response to the JCHR report on legal aid reform, the Government agreed to exempt sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 from the residence test. However, that exemption will not include judicial review, despite the fact that it is often the only remedy available, thereby apparently undermining the exemption that has been made. Will the Minister look closely at expanding the exemption to include judicial review?

Shailesh Vara: The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is in Committee, will look at judicial review in considerable detail.

Tom Clarke: On how many occasions has the Attorney-General had to appoint an amicus curiae as a result of the Government’s legal aid cuts?

Shailesh Vara: That is a matter for the Attorney-General and not for the Ministry of Justice.

Henry Smith: Statistics show that the number of non-molestation orders issued by the English courts has recently increased, and there is some suggestion that they may be used as an additional route to obtaining legal aid. Will my hon. Friend undertake to investigate that further?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will happily look into the matter.

Andy Slaughter: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), that the Government’s cuts to legal aid are “unarguably harsh”? Will the Minister correct his own overestimate of the earnings of legal aid lawyers, which the UK Statistics Authority yesterday called “potentially misleading”? Is it not time that the Ministry of Justice ministerial team put themselves in order?

Shailesh Vara: It is rather rich of the hon. Gentleman to speak about legal aid. The Opposition’s manifesto made it abundantly clear that they would cut legal aid. He and his colleagues lack any credibility unless they put on the record what cuts they would make and, more importantly, whether they would reverse the cuts that we are making.

Julian Brazier: Will my hon. Friend look at the workings of the Legal Aid Board, so that we never again see a case such as the one in which the board in Essex awarded legal aid to a violent husband to employ a private detective to pursue a battered wife to my constituency?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I will be more than happy to ensure that everything is done properly in his case or, indeed, others.

Probation Service

Chris Williamson: What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.

Mary Glindon: What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.

Grahame Morris: What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.

Chris Grayling: We are making good progress with our transforming rehabilitation reforms, which will realign current probation structures to address the gap that sees 50,000 short-sentenced prisoners released on to the streets each year with little support. The new structures will come into effect on 1 June. The process of reallocating staff to those new structures is now complete.

Chris Williamson: The Secretary of State has a reputation for making policy based on ideology rather than evidence, as we saw with the shambolic Work programme that he bequeathed to the Department for Work and Pensions. Now his own officials have warned him that
	“an unacceptable drop in operational performance”
	is causing
	“delivery failures and reputational damage”.
	Why is he continuing with the reforms when all the informed opinion is shouting at him to stop?

Chris Grayling: The Opposition continue to refer to the planning document at the start of the project, and they cannot explain what they would do instead. Their policy is to leave 50,000 people walking the streets and likely to commit serious offences again with no support post-prison. Until the Opposition tell us what they would do to address the problem, which they identified when in government and did nothing about, they will have no credibility.

Mary Glindon: In some large areas, there have been only a small number of bidders for the service, and the award-winning Northumbria probation trust is down to three bidders. Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how many bidders have dropped out since the process started?

Chris Grayling: We have a strong slate of potential bidders in every part of the country, with a good mix of private and voluntary sector expertise and some attractive partnerships that can deliver real results for us. We will see later in the summer who emerges successfully from the bidding process, but I am completely confident that we have a strong candidate in every part of the country.

Grahame Morris: The Minister accuses us of looking backwards, but his transforming of rehabilitation services programme is controversial and fraught with difficulties. Does he agree with his permanent secretary, Ursula Brennan, who told the Public Accounts Committee
	last week that if the Ministry of Justice was not ready to take the next steps, it would not do so—or would he press on regardless?

Chris Grayling: It is precisely because we are confident in the process that we are moving to the next stage. We will take it a step at a time, and we will always take steps to address issues of public safety. The Opposition, having identified the problem of offenders going without supervision, and having legislated to deal with it while in government and then done nothing about it, are now attacking us for wanting to do something about it. They have no ideas themselves.

Alan Beith: Will the Lord Chancellor clarify what the procedure will be if a bidder fails, withdraws from a contract or has to be replaced?

Chris Grayling: The benefit of having a national probation service that sits under the umbrella of the Department is that, were a bidder to fail, it would be possible for the Department to take operational control of that area while we retendered the contract. There are proper mechanisms in place to ensure that coverage would continue.

Stephen Mosley: Each year, about 600,000 crimes are committed by people who have already committed criminal acts. That is a shocking level of reoffending. What is my right hon. Friend doing to bring that number down?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right, and this is at the heart of our reforms. Crime in this country is falling, which is good, and the number of first-time entrants into the criminal justice system is falling, which is also good. Crime is increasingly being committed by those who are going round and round the system. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the rationale for our reforms. If we do nothing about this, there will be more and more victims of crime. I do not want to see that happen, although the Opposition are clearly happy to do so.

Duncan Hames: The Government support a greater role for mutual organisations in the provision of public services, and there has been welcome interest from mutuals in the rehabilitation contracts. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that mutuals will be well placed to participate in the provision of those services?

Chris Grayling: We have had some strong bids from employee groups within the probation service, and we have sought to provide them with as much support as possible. There is a unit in the Cabinet Office that has provided financial and professional support during the bidding process. I have no say in the final decision making process, but I have every hope that staff groups will be involved when those decisions are made in the summer.

Nicholas Dakin: My constituents cannot understand why the Government are seeking to use unproven, untested people to carry out this work when Humberside probation service does
	such a good job. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that he is not taking a risk with public safety?

Chris Grayling: The guarantee I can give the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that we are not removing the people who are doing the job at the moment. We are freeing them operationally to innovate, and we are bringing new skills to the task of rehabilitating offenders. A much greater danger to his constituents would be to do nothing, and to leave all those thousands of offenders with no support or supervision, walking the streets, including in his constituency, and able to commit more crimes.

Jenny Chapman: The fact is that the Secretary of State has had to delay his plans already. His work force are going out on strike, he has a payment-by-results model that pays regardless of results, and 200,000 offenders do not know who will be supervising them. Has he not become so enamoured of his project that he can no longer see, let alone deal with, its many serious flaws?

Chris Grayling: What a load of complete nonsense! The reality is that the Opposition have no idea how to deal with the problem of reoffending. They are in opposition, and we are now less than a year away from a general election, yet I have not the slightest idea of what they would do in our place. I am not prepared to allow a situation to continue in which people are left to walk the streets with no post-prison supervision, resulting in thousands of them reoffending, when we know from the experience of the pilot that we set up in Peterborough that mentoring those offenders can bring down crime significantly.

Reoffending

Steve Brine: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending by persistent offenders.

Charlie Elphicke: What progress he has made on his reforms to rehabilitation aimed at reducing reoffending.

Jeremy Wright: On 13 March 2014, the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 received Royal Assent. This Act addresses the gap that sees 50,000 short-sentenced prisoners—those most likely to reoffend—released on to the streets each year with no support, by providing those offenders with supervision in the community for the first time in recent history.

Steve Brine: The Minister will be aware that a major reducing reoffending conference was held in Winchester earlier this month, organised by the high sheriff of Hampshire and the police and crime commissioner. Does he agree that although we must bring short-term persistent offenders into supervision, as we are doing, we must also invest heavily in treatment and give sentencers some real options if the system is to work? That has been done, and successfully, in the Right on Crime initiative in Texas.

Jeremy Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we give flexibility to rehabilitation providers to do what they believe will work in turning someone away from crime. He is right that if someone is addicted to drugs or alcohol, giving them the treatment that they require will help in that task. He will also recognise that for those with a mental health problem, it is better to divert them from the criminal justice system in the first place, and that is what we seek to do.

Charlie Elphicke: At my surgery on Friday, I met John who has just been released from prison after serving 20 years for murder. He wants to turn away from crime and do well in our society, but he needs a job. Is it not important that we look at this matter as a cross-departmental issue to get people back into a life where they do well and are really productive?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right that more than one Government Department needs to turn their attention to this. Of course he will know that we have allowed for changes to be made so that people can have access to the Work programme as soon as they come out of custody. As he says, it is important that all Government Departments work together with us on the rehabilitation agenda, as they have so far.

Gregory Campbell: Reducing reoffending is something on which Justice Ministers right across the United Kingdom are working vigorously. Will the Minister ensure that discussions take place across the devolved regions to ensure that best practice is replicated right across the entire nation?

Jeremy Wright: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that working together to share best practice is important, and we will certainly seek to do that. There are good examples of rehabilitation to be found across the United Kingdom.

John McDonnell: At the heart of the Government’s reforms is the large-scale tendering of services. Does the grotesque debacle of the electronic tagging contract with Buddi not demonstrate that the Minister’s Government is incapable of managing this process efficiently? This is yet another contract where the competition has been ended. A Ministry of Justice statement says that it has had to retender the contract for the supply of new tags.

Jeremy Wright: Perhaps unsurprisingly, I do not agree with the way the hon. Gentleman has represented the situation. The position is this. We will work with a preferred bidder to try to ensure that our needs are met and that we can reach agreement in delivering what will be impressive new technology to help us keep better track of offenders. If we cannot reach agreement with a preferred bidder, we must move on to another provider, and that is what is happening here. Four lots are involved in this particular process. On three of them, things are working as well as we could possibly have expected. In relation to the fourth, there are difficulties, but we are resolving them. What I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome is the use of the technology.

John Glen: Given that one in four prisoners has a mental health problem, I welcome the news that the Government are providing
	£25 million to host mental health nurses in police stations. Will the Minister outline how the progress of that pilot scheme is being monitored?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right that the scheme operates from more than one Government Department. It is important that we work together with our colleagues in the Health Department to deliver what he is describing. We will monitor that progress, as will the Health Department. It will be monitored across Government because we want people with mental health problems to be diverted from the criminal justice system.

Kate Green: Under the transforming rehabilitation reform programme, there will be 21 contract package areas but 12 reducing to 10 women’s prisons, so not every area will have a women’s prison, but every area will receive women when they are released from prison. What arrangements will be in place to ensure continuity of support through the gate when a woman returns to a different area from the prison in which she has been incarcerated?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady is of course right that there are fewer female prisons than there are contract package areas, but that is in many ways a good thing because it means that we have fewer women to incarcerate. She is right that we need to think about how the new system will work. The way we will do that is to ensure that rehabilitation providers have the opportunity to be located in a prison. It may not be a prison located within their own contract package area, but they will have a presence so that everyone coming through the custodial system and being released out of it will have the opportunity to speak to a rehabilitation provider and to make the necessary connections while in custody.

Employment and Support Allowance

Sheila Gilmore: What progress he has made in ensuring that the judiciary provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with reasons for their conclusions in appeals against employment and support allowance.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the provision of this information is a matter for the judiciary. However, they have agreed to provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with summary reasons for their decisions in employment and support allowance appeals. That approach was successfully piloted at four tribunal venues from June 2013 and will be rolled out later this year.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the most recent statistics show that 45% of ESA appeals are successful. That is a slightly higher figure than in the previous set of statistics and suggests that the flow of information that could ensure that the decisions are right first time is still not happening. When will we see a published proper evaluation of what is going on?

Shailesh Vara: The pilot programme is now being rolled out and we need to see its full impact. The DWP has found the information it has been given very useful and
	as a consequence it is in the process of revising the guidance for decision makers. It is to be hoped that the decisions taken as a consequence will be of a much better standard.

Philip Hollobone: In Kettering, benefit claimants who appeal against refusals sometimes have to wait for more than 40 weeks for their appeals to be heard. That is completely unacceptable and involves some of the longest waits in the whole country. What is being done by the Department to tackle these long waiting times?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the legacy of the previous Government and that the backlog is being dealt with—[Interruption.] I appreciate that this is difficult for the Opposition, but the truth often hurts—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of very raucous noise from those on the Opposition Benches. The Minister is a very courteous fellow and he is trying to address—[Interruption.] Order. He is trying to address the House. Let us hear him.

Shailesh Vara: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can assure my hon. Friend we are dealing with the backlog, which is going down.

Judicial Review

Mike Kane: What his future plans are for access to judicial review.

Shailesh Vara: Judicial review is, and will remain, a vital means of holding public authorities to account, but the Government are concerned about the potential for unmeritorious judicial reviews being used to frustrate decisions that have been properly made, to generate publicity and to cause delay. Last month we announced a package of reforms designed to reduce the number of unmeritorious claims and speed up the process for those claimants who have arguable grounds and a genuine case to put. Most of our reforms will be given effect through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is currently in Committee—a Committee on which the hon. Gentleman is serving.

Mike Kane: Last week, the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill heard evidence from 17 leading experts in the field of judicial review. Is not the Minister just a little concerned that not one of them agrees with the Government’s position as set out in that Bill?

Shailesh Vara: I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at that evidence, he will find that one of the very last people to speak—I am thinking of only one person who comes to mind—said that the reforms would be helpful for development. Judicial review is a very good system of holding the Executive to account, but it is our intention to ensure that unmeritorious claims are dealt with so that those that are genuine can go through to help the economy and the taxpayer and ensure, ultimately, that those who want jobs can get them.

Bob Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that unmeritorious judicial reviews not only bring the judicial system into public disrepute but are frequently a significant financial burden on democratically elected local authorities, which might find their attempts to carry out the wishes of their electorate frustrated?

Shailesh Vara: That is absolutely the case. Some local authorities are trying to help the economy through projects, only for them to be frustrated by unmeritorious claims. The taxpayer loses out because of the extra costs, the efforts of those who wish the projects to make progress or to have employment in them are stifled and, ultimately, the economy does not recover in the way that it ought to. That is what we are trying to achieve, to put right the consequences of the Opposition’s time in government.

Justice (London)

Bob Blackman: What recent representations he has received on the role played by the London mayoralty in the delivery of justice in London.

Chris Grayling: I have had a number of conversations with the London Mayor regarding the provision of services, particularly those for victims, which I regard as extremely important. We have now been able to release an extra £12 million of victim funding for areas most affected by crime and, subject to the proposals that are made, that will potentially include the capital.

Bob Blackman: As we devolve more power to the Mayor of London, is it not important to devolve the Prison Service and the probation service so that Londoners can hold the Mayor of London to account for the entirety of keeping London safe?

Chris Grayling: We continue to involve the Mayor and the Mayor’s office specialising in justice matters closely in our plans for prisons and probation, but I urge my hon. Friend to be careful about what he wishes for. There are others who are keen to take over MOPAC—the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—and I have more concerns about their ability to do so. To pick an example purely at random, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was asked recently about his ambitions to be Mayor of London, and he replied that
	“if I was at the edge of the box and the ball came my way and I thought I had the best chance of scoring then I might go for it”.
	That might explain why he has written a manifesto for London that has no justice policies at all.

Andrew Love: Does the Minister think the Mayor of London should be given more funds from the justice system, when all he seems to want to spend it on is water cannon?

Chris Grayling: It is important that, where we can do so, we ensure we have the right support for a range of services in London, including those for victims. That is the kind of discussion that the Mayor of London and I have been having and will continue to have.

Court Closures

David Crausby: What further plans he has to close courts before 2015.

Shailesh Vara: Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure it meets operational requirements. Any new proposals to close courts or tribunals beyond those already announced would be subject to consultation.

David Crausby: For too many years Bolton magistrates court has been dogged by rumour of closure, when what the court needs is stability. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no further change of mind on the future of Bolton magistrates court?

Shailesh Vara: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, there are no plans at present as regards Bolton magistrates court, but he will appreciate that the court estate has to be kept under review to ensure that it meets operational needs. In the event that anything happens, there will be a consultation. Nothing is planned for Bolton magistrates court.

Christopher Chope: How many magistrates courts does my hon. Friend think could be closed if they no longer had to deal with television tax evaders?

Shailesh Vara: I do not have the answer off the top of my head, but I am happy to look into the matter and try to provide one.

Ian Lucas: Proposals to merge Wrexham and Flintshire magistrates court benches are being carried forward without public consultation. Does the Minister think that is appropriate?

Shailesh Vara: That is a local decision for the local justices.

Rehman Chishti: In relation to court closures, Medway magistrates court has an excellent virtual court scheme. However, funding has not been renewed for the scheme, which has received national recognition. Will the Minister review that and confirm the Government’s commitment to virtual court schemes?

Shailesh Vara: Absolutely.

Prison Service (Staffing Levels)

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of staffing of the Prison Service.

Jeremy Wright: As my hon. Friend knows, we have closed some prison accommodation for a variety of good reasons, and there have been staffing reductions as a result, all achieved without the use of compulsory redundancy. Staffing levels in prisons are currently subject to a detailed benchmarking assessment that takes account of the role and responsibility of each prison.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, particularly in regard to the closure of Northallerton prison. Can he say how many may have been affected by the use of the voluntary early departure scheme and where those currently working at Northallerton prison will be placed for future duties?

Jeremy Wright: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there will be a variety of different futures for those leaving Northallerton. She knows already that the decision to close that establishment is no reflection whatever on the efforts of the staff who were based there. I can tell her that 34 staff have taken up the option of voluntary early departure.

Sadiq Khan: Prison numbers have been going up and prison staff going down. The Department’s own figures show that the national tactical response squad, the prison riot squad, was called out 72% more times last year than in 2010, more prisoners and prison staff are being assaulted and deaths in custody were the highest for a decade. To state the obvious, none of that is conducive to rehabilitation. Is any of this the responsibility of this Government, and what does the Minister intend to do about it?

Jeremy Wright: Of course, management of the prison estate is the responsibility of this Government, as indeed when the last Government were in power it was theirs. There is a variety of reasons why the tornado teams attend, and the serious incidents that they attend are at roughly half the level they were under the last Government, so the right hon. Gentleman needs to be clear about the statistics he uses. Frankly, if he spent a bit more time doing the job he has and a bit less time chasing the Mayor of London’s job, he might get those things right. But let us get something else very clear. It is important that we maintain a safe, secure and decent estate, and that is exactly what we will do. Where there are increased levels of assault, which I agree are a matter of concern, we need to address that in a number of ways, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Victims of Crime

Chris Ruane: What his policy is on support for victims of crimes.

Damian Green: The Government are committed to providing more support than ever to victims of crime, and to giving them a louder voice in the criminal justice system. We have implemented a new victims code that tells people what to expect at every stage of the process. We aim to spend up to £100 million to support victims to cope and where possible recover from crime. This is roughly double what we currently spend, with offenders paying a much greater share. Last month we announced the first dedicated fund of £500,000 to support victims of male rape.

Chris Ruane: The Minister speaks of a code of practice. Will he confirm that if it is ignored by the police or the courts, the victim has no recourse whatsoever? The code is, in effect, toothless.

Damian Green: No, I would not say that at all because among our other innovations is a Victims’ Commissioner, whose basic role is to ensure that the code of practice is taken seriously by the police and by all other parts of the criminal justice system. Victims have much greater protection under this Government than they ever had under the previous Government.

Philip Davies: Every year, about 3,000 burglars with 15 or more previous convictions are not sent to prison. How does releasing these people back on to the streets to continue their crime spree help victims of crime? Is it not time that legislation was introduced to ensure that persistent burglars must be sent to prison?

Damian Green: I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the “Transforming Rehabilitation” proposals, which will mean that those receiving even sentences of under 12 months will for the first time receive help in prison, which will ensure that they are much less likely to reoffend when they come out.

Catherine McKinnell: Since May 2010, we have had 15 months with no Victims’ Commissioner at all, and two years with a part-time Victims’ Commissioner. What kind of signal does the Minister think that sends about this Government’s attitude to victims of crime?

Damian Green: I think that we have an excellent Victims’ Commissioner, who does the job extremely well.

Sadiq Khan: Part-time.

Damian Green: One of the most ironic heckles I have ever heard is the shadow Justice Secretary shouting “Part-time”, when that is the method that he adopts to his job.

Dan Jarvis: About 550 people lose their lives in homicides throughout the country each year. For the families left bereaved by these tragedies, the dreadful impact can last for many years afterwards. Victims of crime often need long-term or even life-long support. Will the Minister therefore explain why the Government’s new homicide service will not be providing services to families who have lost a loved one prior to April 2010?

Damian Green: As the hon. Gentleman says, the homicide service will deal with those who have been bereaved by homicide over the past few years, but more money has gone to local police and crime commissioners, and they can commission additional services, which may well include some of the groups that I know are worried about the services they are providing to more distant victims of homicide. I can assure him that I am equally concerned about that, but the PCCs will deal with them.

Pleural Plaques (Compensation)

Stephen Hepburn: What recent representations he has received on compensation for people with pleural plaques.

Shailesh Vara: We have received a small number of representations on pleural plaques over the past few months, including some from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents.

Stephen Hepburn: Does the Minister agree that the current system of compensation for pleural plaques is grossly unfair? People with pleural plaques living in Scotland or Northern Ireland qualify for compensation, but those living in England or Wales do not. Does he think that is unfair, and is he going to do anything about it?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are different legal jurisdictions, which means that there will occasionally be differences. In the light of the current medical evidence, the Government do not consider it appropriate to overturn the House of Lords judgment that the condition of pleural plaques is not compensatable under the civil law.

Shrewsbury 24

Katy Clark: What recent progress has been made on the release of papers relating to the Shrewsbury 24.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady will know that the Cabinet Office holds the key to releasing the remaining documents. I am grateful for the letter she wrote to me and hope she has received my reply. I am conscious that she has a family interest in the matter as well as a political one. I remind her that we adopted the system that was in place under the previous Government, according to which matters that touch on national security are subject to exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. We are talking about only one document and three paragraphs in each of three other documents. If she addresses her request to the Cabinet Office ahead of the review, I hope that she will get an encouraging response.

Katy Clark: The Minister must accept that it is difficult to believe that, more than 40 years after the events, there could be any real national security issues. He is aware that on 23 January this House voted for the publication of the documents. Is he willing to meet me and other interested Members to discuss how we can ensure that the documents are published at the earliest opportunity?

Simon Hughes: The earliest opportunity will be next year, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) in the debate that he secured. I also offered him the opportunity to discuss it with colleagues, and I am very open to that. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Lord Chancellor satisfied himself that it was appropriate for the documents to be kept under Cabinet closure, but the matter will be open to full review next year.

Musical Instruments for Prisoners

Kevin Brennan: What his policy is on the use by prisoners of musical instruments.

Jeremy Wright: In accordance with the revised policy on incentives and earned privileges, prisoners on the standard or enhanced level of the IEP scheme are allowed, if permitted by their governor, to have in their possession, and at their own expense, some musical instruments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, following changes to the scheme, prisoners must earn those and other privileges.

Kevin Brennan: I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am quite a big fan of the late Johnny Cash, who performed in prisons, and Billy Bragg, who started the Jail Guitar Doors initiative to provide guitars to those in prison using musical instruments as a means of rehabilitation. Why have the Government banned the use of most of those instruments by ordering prisoners to return steel-string and electric guitars?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps predictably, given his level of expertise, has reached a level of detail on musical instruments of which I am not currently cognisant, but I will look into the matter he raises. He is right that music can be a method of rehabilitation. We want prisoners to play instruments, either on their own or in groups, in appropriate circumstances, but he will understand that there have to be some restrictions. I will have a look and ensure that the restrictions are appropriate.

Sentencing Guidelines (Manslaughter)

Tobias Ellwood: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of current sentencing guidelines in manslaughter cases where a single punch to the head results in death; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Wright: Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is no current Sentencing Council guideline for manslaughter. However, the Court of Appeal issued a guideline judgment in 2009 on sentencing for that offence in which it made it clear that attention should be paid to the problem of gratuitous, unprovoked violence in our city centres and streets.

Tobias Ellwood: In November last year Andrew Young, a constituent of mine, challenged a cyclist for riding on the pavement. For his troubles he was viciously punched in the head and tragically died the next day. His attacker was convicted of manslaughter a fortnight ago and received a sentence of just four years, so he is likely to be out in just two years. I am grateful for the Attorney-General calling the case in, but I hope that the Minister will agree that there is no excuse for such violent behaviour and that the sentence seems unduly lenient.

Jeremy Wright: I certainly agree that there is no excuse for that kind of behaviour, and this is clearly a very tragic case. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Attorney-General’s consideration of the matter. My right hon. and learned Friend will reach his own conclusions in due course. As I have said, I think it is right that we have high penalties available in appropriate cases. Of course, as my hon. Friend will recognise, it is for individual sentencers to decide how to use them.

Nick de Bois: Does my hon. Friend understand that, as there has been more than one instance of a low sentence in the event of taking a life under such circumstances, as illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), there will be a growing demand for mandatory sentences unless the courts respond accordingly?

Jeremy Wright: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern; he has an enviable track record in campaigning on these matters. It is important, however, that we all recognise that it is difficult to make an appropriate judgment on the adequacy of a sentence unless we have heard all the evidence and mitigation in the case; few of us have that advantage. The existence of the right of the Attorney-General to refer matters to the Court of Appeal where he believes there to be unduly lenient sentences is the right mechanism. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the matter at the moment.

Mr Speaker: Robert Flello—not here.

Freedom of Information Act

Lindsay Roy: What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to expand the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Simon Hughes: There has been good progress in extending the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act because the coalition Government pledged to extend its scope to provide greater transparency. We extended it in 2010 to academies, in 2011 to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, and last year to 100 companies wholly owned by more than one public authority. The next item on the agenda is to do with Network Rail, and we are awaiting a view from the Department for Transport as to whether it thinks it would be appropriate for that to be implemented this year.

Lindsay Roy: What benefits have accrued to the Government and citizens from the implementation of the Act, and when does the Minister plan to extend its scope further?

Simon Hughes: We intend to extend it further as soon as is practical. One specific issue that I hope will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman—as it is to colleagues of his, including those who have come to see me about it—is that we intend to publish a revised code of practice to make sure that private companies that carry out public functions have freedom of information requirements in their contracts and go further than that. We hope that that will be in place by the end of this year.

Mark Harper: There is one area where the Minister should perhaps look at narrowing the scope of the Act, because my understanding is that requests can be made by anybody anywhere on the face of the earth; they do not have to be British citizens. It is not the role of the British Government to
	be a taxpayer-funded research service for anyone on the globe. May I suggest that he narrow the scope to those for whom the Government work—citizens of our country?

Simon Hughes: I well understand my hon. Friend’s point. There will be two consultations this year: first, on precisely such issues about the scope of the current legislation to make sure that it is not abused while we retain freedom of information as a principle of Government; and secondly, on extending it to other areas where we have not gone so far.

Topical Questions

Guy Opperman: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: I would like briefly to inform the House of some important changes I am making to the use of release on temporary licence for prisoners, in order to tighten the current system and better protect the public. In future, all prisoners released on temporary licence will be tagged. Temporary licences will be granted only where a prisoner has demonstrated a commitment to change and there is a clear benefit in reducing reoffending. There will be a more thorough risk assessment before temporary licences are authorised and a more robust response for prisoners who fail to comply. For serious or violent offenders, I am introducing a new scheme of restricted temporary licences that will involve more stringent risk assessments and a more robust monitoring regime. These measures will ensure that we make more effective use of release on temporary licence and that we take the steps necessary to maintain public safety.

Guy Opperman: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he agree that the best way to bridge the gap between prison and normal life is through help by organisations such as the Oswin project, based in Northumberland, which provides paid apprenticeships and paid employment such that the individuals concerned, who are all ex-offenders, are better able to integrate and manage their way back into normal life?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to visiting Northumberland shortly and seeing some of the work that is being done. This is enormously important. It is particularly important that we have really close links between the efforts provided to help people into employment and the efforts put into helping them to sort their lives out once they have left prison. Those two areas are integrally linked, and that work is immensely important.

Sadiq Khan: Does the Justice Secretary think there is a problem with young men in particular being radicalised in our prisons? If so, what is he doing about it?

Chris Grayling: There is certainly a real issue. We have seen over the years the radicalisation of young men in prisons. We now have a first-rate team of imams in our prisons who are carefully selected and I have met a number of them. They are putting together carefully constructed programmes to help steer people away from
	radicalisation. I pay tribute to the work they do in often difficult circumstances and I believe they can really make a difference.

Sadiq Khan: The sorts of things that the Prime Minister’s extremism taskforce, experts, governors and staff are saying are required are enhanced monitoring, better intelligence gathering, staff trained to recognise and deal with the issue, a dedicated expert unit within the Prison Service, a specialist programme to target prisoners and spare capacity for governors. What resources and how much personal attention is the Justice Secretary giving to that?

Chris Grayling: Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that all of those things are, in fact, currently happening. The last meeting I had to discuss those issues took place in the past two weeks. It is a matter of great concern to my colleagues on the Front Bench and to me, and we will continue to work at it. I again pay the greatest of tributes to the staff involved in this work on the front line and the imams who are doing such good work in shaping the education programmes that can make a real difference. I think that there is agreement across the House that we need to ensure that the work is effective and delivers real results for us. I am very confident in the team who are doing it.

Marcus Jones: Could the Secretary of State update the House on what recent discussions he has had in Brussels regarding any moves intended to create an EU-wide justice system?

Chris Grayling: I have continual conversations about that and continue to resist any attempts to do it. One of the areas I have been most concerned about is the creation of the justice scorecard, the latest version of which was published yesterday. I believe it is a vehicle that theoretically allows the Commission to extend its legislative remit. I am pleased to tell the House that the United Kingdom is the only country that is wholly not co-operating with the justice scorecard.

Stella Creasy: Legal aid used for injunctions and stays pending judicial review has been vital in preventing ordinary families from spiralling into homelessness and, indeed, in saving the public purse the costs of incorrectly made homelessness decisions by local authorities. Will Ministers confirm whether the changes made to legal aid in regulations last week have retained that specific protection?

Shailesh Vara: The provisions are there and there are exceptions. The hon. Lady will be aware that the argument constantly put forward that legal aid is being taken away from everyone simply does not match up. For those who are in need and when people’s individual liberty is at stake, legal aid is provided, as is the case with other provisions.

Tobias Ellwood: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to give victims of crime a greater voice so that the impact of crimes can be seen and heard?

Damian Green: As I detailed earlier, we have taken a large number of measures. Perhaps the most significant one will be literally to give them a voice in court: victims of crime will be able to make a statement in court after the verdict but before the sentence. Many victims have emphasised that that will empower them: they will be able to look the offender in the face and say what effect the offence has had on their family. That is a very significant change in the court process in favour of victims.

Katy Clark: It is estimated that this year there will be 42,000 applications to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which means that 15,000 people who would have been eligible under the old scheme will not get anything. Is the Secretary of State proud that he has taken away access to justice for so many victims of crime?

Chris Grayling: What we have tried to do in what are tough times financially is centre the resource we have on those who have been most badly affected by crimes. The reforms put together by my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) were designed to ensure that those who had relatively minor injuries as a result of crime would not be where we focused our resource and would be excluded from the scheme. We have left in place discretionary funding so that in unexpected circumstances, where there is an unexpected impact, support can still be provided.

Robert Buckland: I warmly welcome the use of mental health diversion pilot schemes in police stations pre-arrest, but more work needs to be done to ensure that the number of people with mental health conditions in our prison system is as small as possible. Which steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to deal with that vital issue?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. For me, this issue is the next priority for my Department beyond the current reforms. I believe that we need to make better provision for people with mental health problems in our prisons. It is the next big piece of work that needs to be done, and I hope and expect that we will have the opportunity to put in place real change in the future that can make a difference for those people.

Kerry McCarthy: Next Wednesday, I will host an event in Parliament on behalf of the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. Sophie and her boyfriend were Goths who were set upon by a gang and brutally kicked and beaten, and Sophie died of her injuries. What guidance is the Minister giving courts about treating such crimes and sentencing them as hate crimes?

Chris Grayling: May I first say that we in this House all abhor such horrendous incidents, and our hearts always go out to the families of the victims. The hon. Lady will of course understand that sentencing guidelines are created by the Sentencing Council, and that we as politicians do not have the power, unless we choose to
	legislate, to instruct courts how to act in particular circumstances. The message I would always give to courts is that it is the will of the democratically elected Parliament that horrendous and brutal crimes should be dealt with firmly and appropriately.

David Mowat: The recent orchestrated action by self-employed barristers in protection of their commercial interest is prima facie evidence of an anti-competitive cartel. Such a cartel would be illegal under EU and UK competition law. What can we do to uphold the law in this area?

Shailesh Vara: The action taken by barristers recently is very regrettable. It caused a lot of inconvenience to victims and witnesses. I just want to assure the legal profession that the door of the Secretary of State for Justice and my door are wide open, and we hope that we can engage in constructive dialogue.

Andrew Gwynne: Last autumn, Ministers said that no prisoners were being held in police cells, but figures show that there were 608 occasions on which prisoners were held in police cells between October and January. Will the Minister apologise?

Jeremy Wright: No, because the hon. Gentleman is not correctly representing what we said. We said that Operation Safeguard was not in action, and that was true. He should understand that the use of police cells is routine—it was done under the previous Government—and occurs for a variety of reasons, some of which, for example, are down to courts finishing late and not being able to be get prisoners back to their home prison in time. Those things have happened under the previous Government and under this one. He might be interested to know that the use of prison cells last year was a little under 1,000; under his Government, it reached a peak of 50,000.

Andrew Bridgen: Given the level of support across this House for the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence fee, does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued criminalisation of people whose only crime is being poor is completely untenable? What discussions has he had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this issue?

Chris Grayling: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. We are giving this issue careful consideration. I have had discussions both with my counterpart at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and with the Cabinet Office. The three Departments will continue to have discussions both with him and other Back Benchers with an interest in this issue, and with the BBC.

Nick Smith: Last week, G4S repaid more than £100 million, after malpractice on its tagging contract. Should we be concerned that G4S has just bought itself a clean bill of health for future contracts?

Chris Grayling: We have said to both G4S and Serco—I deplore the actions of those companies in the things that have taken place—that simply repaying money is not sufficient, and that we expect them to go through a process of corporate renewal, which will involve comprehensive changes to both personnel and ways of working internally. I am not in the process of destroying British companies; I am in the business of saying, “You cannot expect to work with Government unless you uphold high standards, take a transparent approach and absolutely do not try to rip off the taxpayer.”

Greg Mulholland: If someone is breathalysed and found to be over the limit, their driving licence can be suspended straight away. However, if someone is found to be over the limit and kills somebody, it can take months. That was the experience of the family of Jamie Still, whose killer drove for eight months after killing him in 2010. Prosecutors do not ask for the suspension of a driving licence in a case of death by criminal driving. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the Crown Prosecution Service about that?

Chris Grayling: I am happy to take that matter forward. I was not aware of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will take a careful look at it and discuss it with him.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State content with a system of justice in which people who have no criminal record can be dawn-raided, arrested and left in limbo for months and months, with their careers ruined? Is that the right sort of criminal justice system for our country?

Chris Grayling: It is impossible to answer that question without knowing the circumstances of the case and without understanding the reasons for what I assume are police actions. I want a justice system that acts appropriately, takes tough action where necessary and treats people fairly, including by giving them a fair trial. When people are found guilty, I want the system to treat them appropriately and punish them accordingly.

Philip Hollobone: How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and what steps are being taken to return them to secure detention in their own countries?

Jeremy Wright: I took the trouble to look up that figure on the off-chance that my hon. Friend might ask for it. It is 10,689 as of last Friday, which, I am pleased to tell him, is a reduction from the last time that he asked for the figure and I told him it. It is important that he, I and other Members of the House support the Immigration Bill when it returns to this House, so that we can begin to deal with some of the obstacles to doing what he has described, which include the number of appeals that are available to some people to delay their return to the country to which they should go.

Diana Johnson: Humberside police have the highest number of reported child rapes. Last year, the figure was 176, alongside the 193 reported adult rapes. The cut to the money that is available to the Hull rape crisis centre will mean that the centre is no longer viable and that victims will have to travel 60-odd miles to Leeds to get the assistance that
	they need. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State look at that case to see whether the Ministry of Justice can support this very vulnerable group of people through the continuation of funding?

Damian Green: I will, of course, look at that individual case. However, I hope that the hon. Lady and the House will acknowledge that the Government are committed to funding 15 new rape crisis centres; that the 14th and 15th new centres will come on stream this year; and that we have provided an extra £4 million to allow that to happen. Inevitably, there are bids that cannot be met for perfectly valid reasons, but I will take a look at that case.

Bob Neill: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the adequacy of the terms of reference and working practices of the Office for Judicial Complaints to deal properly with redress in the very rare cases in which our judiciary do not come up to the proper standards of behaviour?

Chris Grayling: I am happy to do so. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me a bit more information on the detail of his concerns. I think that the office does a good job. My experience from my 18 months as Lord Chancellor is that it makes sensible decisions and takes a sensible approach when such issues arise. One hopes that they will not arise often, but I will look at his concerns.

Valerie Vaz: May I ask the Secretary of State to correct the record? In the House, he said that family mediations had not fallen, but a letter from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) says that publicly funded referrals and family mediations have fallen.

Simon Hughes: The position is clear and I tried to clarify it in my letter to the hon. Lady. Sadly, there has been a drop in the number of cases that are going to mediation. There has therefore been a drop in the number of cases that are going through the process. The percentage of successful mediations has not dropped. That is the issue to which the Secretary of State was referring. The Government are committed to doing what she would want, which is to ensure that from next month, when the law changes, there is an increase in referrals to mediation and an increase in successful mediations.

Ian Lavery: Her Majesty’s prison Northumberland was privatised on 1 December 2013. In the four months since, there have been 180 redundancies. Nearly a third of the work force have been released. Is the Secretary of State confident that HMP Northumberland is a safe place for prisoners and staff?

Chris Grayling: We are having to take difficult decisions about staffing levels across the prison estate. I am confident that every one of our prisons is a safe place to detain prisoners. I have not pursued a privatisation strategy across the prison system but accepted the recommendations of the Prison Governors Association and others, and the benchmarking programme that we are putting in place across the prison system was recommended in-house by the public sector team.

Points of Order

Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need your urgent advice on an important constituency case. As the local MP, I have been representing a family in a contested adoption case, including the birth mother, Miss P. In order to represent the family properly, I needed to see the final statements and assessments by relevant social workers. Norfolk county council then e-mailed my constituent, stating:
	“I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or not your client has disclosed a copy of the assessments to Henry Bellingham. This would clearly be in breach of the family procedure rules and a contempt of Court.”
	I then wrote to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), and the president of the family division, Sir James Munby. Both the Minister and Sir James replied that since the case of Re N in 2009, the family procedure rules had been updated specifically to include MPs as interested parties who can receive all relevant statements and assessments. In other words, the county council was completely wrong.
	Norfolk county council was either ignorant of that change in the law, which I find pretty staggering given that every family practitioner in the land will surely have known about the consequences of Re N, or it deliberately misled a vulnerable young mother about the law and conspired to stop MPs going about their duty. I take the matter very seriously, because I have been prevented from getting full and considered advice to Miss P. What protection can you give MPs, Mr Speaker? Is there a possible contempt of Parliament, and could Norfolk county council be referred to the Committee of Privileges?

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman springs to his feet with great alacrity, and we will hear from him in a moment.
	I say to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) that if he has a complaint on grounds of privilege, it will be necessary for him to write to me on that score. More widely, I thank him for his courtesy in giving me advance notice yesterday evening of his intention to raise the point of order. I am concerned as to his ability to act effectively in this matter, and I am sympathetic with the broad thrust of what he has said to me and the House. My clear understanding is that the relevant Minister is interested in coming in on the matter, and he should have the opportunity to do so. We will then hear from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth).

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman thinks that his concern is so immediate that it must be taken now. I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, so we will hear from the Minister in a moment.

Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.
	Further to that point of order, may I put it on record that I have suffered precisely the same threat from Surrey county council about a potential adoption case in my constituency? May I suggest that it is a matter of relevance to you, Mr Speaker, because it strikes at the heart of the issue of privilege? It is extremely important that the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) has just given you about the ruling by the president of the family division is widely disseminated to county councils throughout the country.

Mr Speaker: Look, I make one light-hearted point to the hon. Gentleman and one more serious one. The light-hearted one is that I cannot imagine that any attempt to threaten him could be successful. I have known him for 25 years, and he is not the sort of person to be threatened effectively, let me put it that way.
	On the more substantial and substantive front, I am afraid that I must repeat to the hon. Gentleman that a complaint on grounds of privilege has to be put to me in writing. He knows very well that I am extremely concerned about the protection of parliamentary privilege and the need to guard against any threat to it, as manifested in the recent case involving the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I believe that the hon. Gentleman is well familiar with the exchanges relating to that case. I am sensitive to his concerns, but let us now hear—preferably with brevity—from the Minister.

Simon Hughes: I have not said a word.
	Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. the Ministry of Justice is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) for raising the matter with us. It is of great constitutional importance and significance, and people in local authorities need to know what the law is. It is clear to me that the solicitor acting for Norfolk county council was wrong in what she said, which was that it would be clearly in breach of the family procedure rules and a contempt of court for the documents to be disclosed to the Member of Parliament of the person in question. The president of the family division has drawn the local authority’s attention to the case of Re N, where the judgment is clear. Since then, the family procedure rules have been changed and make it clear that unless a judge has ruled otherwise, parties involved in family cases can disclose information relating to their case to any person, including their constituency MP, as long as it is for the purpose of confidential discussion. The rules are above doubt and clear, and I hope that all local authorities will respect the role of Members of Parliament in representing their constituents.

Mr Speaker: I was aware of the change of rules, and now the House is. We are grateful for that and will leave it there for today. I hope that is helpful.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 6 January this year I asked a named-day question about the introduction of fees for employment tribunals, and particularly the issue of pregnant women who are now being asked to pay £1,200 to go to tribunal. There is concern that there has been chaos in the system about the fee remittance
	available to that group. My named-day question was answered only on 17 January after I had submitted pursuant questions. The Minister said that he would write to me in full, but I have not heard anything and it is now two months later. Can you do anything, Mr Speaker, to ensure that Ministers respond to legitimate questions from Members of Parliament?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady has made her point. The Procedure Committee is conscious of its importance, as indeed is the Leader of the House, who is nodding sagely from a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench.

Gregory Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), made a written statement to the House regarding the impending closure of the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland, which will result in more than 300 jobs being lost, including 200 in my constituency. The matter has concentrated the minds of many people, including a petition of more than 40,000 people. A debate in the Assembly indicated unanimous support there, as well as the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister here. What further procedures are available to try to salvage jobs and services in Northern Ireland before that unacceptable decision is implemented?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already given the issue a somewhat higher profile by the very fact of raising it with such force on the Floor of the House. My simple advice is that he should repair to the Table Office from this Chamber, and seek advice as to the means he can deploy to take forward his concern and seek resolution. I hope that is helpful.
	If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) has been so stoically and patiently waiting.

Brown Hare (Protection)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Randall: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a close season for the hunting of the brown hare; and for connected purposes.
	I shall try not to speak for the full allotted time as we have grave and serious matters to debate following this motion.
	Hares are an iconic and much-valued part of our country’s wildlife, and I doubt there are many people who, having watched them in the wild, are not fascinated by their behaviour and beauty. I present this Bill in March, and we have all heard of mad March hares, which is traditionally when their behaviour is at its most celebrated. For a long time it was thought that the boxing that occurs was competition between males, but closer observation has revealed that it is usually a female hitting a male, either to show that she is not yet ready to mate, or as a test of his determination.
	Over the past 100 years or so, numbers of hares have declined. In some parts of their range they are scarce, but in others they are still relatively abundant. The law currently allows them to be killed as game or to prevent serious damage to farm crops, but unlike other game animals they have no close season in which to raise their young. Some existing legislation cover hares, but I—along with many others—think that a close season is the least that these amazing creatures deserve.
	As is so often the case, however, when a matter is looked into in more depth, the simple answer is not the full picture and there are many more complex issues to consider. I am grateful to many people who have helped me while I have researched this subject, particularly Lorraine Platt of Blue Hare, Humane Society International, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, and the Countryside Alliance. My proposals will probably not please any of them, but I believe they are a sensible middle-ground approach that will allow us to take the matter forward in legislation.
	The welfare issue of how hares are killed is, I believe, covered by existing legislation. If those laws are broken, the perpetrators should face the consequences. In fact, the biggest human threat to hares almost certainly comes from illegal coursing and poaching. Gangs of unscrupulous people invade farmland, chasing and killing hares with dogs while trespassing over property, usually in a very aggressive manner. I have been told that this is a real problem for many farmers. Many have lost their hare population through this practice, or have been tempted to eradicate hares from their land to escape the attention of these criminals. I propose that penalties be strengthened and that proper resources be given to police forces to enable real action to be taken against these people.
	I have spoken to many interested parties and what strikes me most is that hares are almost universally thought of in kind terms, not just by wildlife enthusiasts like myself but by countrymen and women generally. The reasons for their declining numbers are not shooting, but changing farming practices that leave little areas of cover and predation, principally by foxes. A fully grown
	hare can outrun a fox but leverets are particularly vulnerable, so a population can quickly have an imbalance, with fewer young hares coming through. I have seen impressive statistics from the work of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust at its Allerton farm project that show how hare numbers increase dramatically when fox numbers are controlled.
	It must be recognised that hares can and do damage crops. When I first considered introducing a close season, I was made aware of the danger that farmers who are concerned about that damage would, as a matter of expediency and as a precaution, kill as many hares as possible before the close season to minimise legally the numbers that would cause damage later. That is obviously not the result that I and others are looking for, so I have to concede that provision should be made to allow some shooting, if necessary, during the close season. I envisage something along the lines of section 7 of the Deer Act 1991, which provides a “farmer’s defence” whereby authorised persons may, in certain circumstances, shoot deer if they are causing damage in the close season. I am loth to bring in more bureaucracy, so how that could be enacted would have to be considered in more detail, but I believe this exemption would satisfy the needs of farmers who have genuine concerns about a close season.
	The breeding season of the hare is a long one, and dependent somewhat on geography. The current code of practice has been agreed to by a coalition of country interests, including the Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, among others. The work of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust on this subject has been extremely thorough. Its code of practice states:
	“From 1 March to 31 July hares should only be killed if they are…causing serious crop damage (as opposed to them being a potential source of risk). Not shooting at this time prevents the orphaning of dependent young during the hare’s main breeding season.”
	This period should be extended to start on 1 February and end on 31 August, and it should be enshrined in law. That is why I propose the Bill and why I hope it will be given leave to advance today. I do not believe that I am being sentimental about this magnificent creature, but I am taking a pragmatic attitude to help one aspect of its conservation for future generations to enjoy.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Sir John Randall, Mark Pritchard, Caroline Nokes, Mr Adrian Sanders, John McDonnell, Angela Smith, Caroline Dinenage and Michael Fabricant present the Bill.
	Sir John Randall accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 184).

Ukraine

[Relevant documents: 19th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xviii, Chapter 5; and 40th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xxxvii.]

Mr Speaker: We now come to the main business: a general debate on Ukraine, for which there are three hours, protected. Before I call the Foreign Secretary to move the motion, it may be convenient for the House to know that 26 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to contribute from the Back Benches. Obviously there is no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary and his shadow will wish sensitively to tailor their contributions in the light of the level of interest among their colleagues.

William Hague: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered Ukraine.
	The crisis in Ukraine is the most serious test of European security in the 21st century so far. The United Kingdom’s interests are twofold. First, we want to see a stable, prosperous and unified Ukraine that is able to determine its own future, free from external pressure or interference. Secondly, we have a vital interest in the upholding of international law and the United Nations charter, the honouring of treaties, and the maintenance of a rules-based international system. Russia’s actions in Crimea run roughshod over all those fundamental principles, and threaten the future of Ukraine.
	I pay tribute to the extraordinary restraint shown by the Ukrainian Government, Ukraine’s military forces and its people in the face of immense provocation, with part of their country invaded and tens of thousands of forces massed on their border by a neighbour that refuses to rule out further military intervention against them. There is a grave danger of a provocation elsewhere in Ukraine that will become a pretext for further military escalation. We are working urgently to agree the mandate of an expanded OSCE monitoring mission to all parts of the country in the coming days.
	On Friday, I met United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov before their bilateral talks here in London. Russia was presented with a series of proposals to de-escalate the crisis and to address the situation in Crimea. After six hours of talks, Russia rebuffed those efforts, and on Sunday the referendum went ahead. The Crimean authorities claimed a turnout of 83% of the population, with 96.8% voting in favour of joining Russia. Yesterday the Parliament of Crimea formally applied to join the Russian Federation, and President Putin signed a decree recognising Crimea as a “sovereign state’” He has now announced, in the last two hours, new laws to incorporate Crimea in the Russian Federation.
	It was regrettable to hear President Putin today choosing the route of isolation, denying the citizens of his own country and of Crimea partnership with the international community and full membership of a range of international organisations, and denying Russia its right to help to shape the 21st century in a positive manner. No amount of sham and perverse democratic process or skewed historical references can make up for the fact that this is
	an incursion into a sovereign state and a land grab of part of its territory, with no respect for the law of that country or for international law.
	The referendum was clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution, which states that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an integral constituent part of Ukraine, that it can resolve issues related to its authority only within the provisions of the constitution, and that only the Ukrainian Parliament has the right to call such referendums.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that any referendum that is held at the barrel of a gun and on an electoral roll that is manifestly not fit for purpose cannot be taken seriously?

William Hague: Yes. This was a vote in circumstances in which Crimea was occupied by more than 20,000 Russian troops, and indeed the meeting of the Crimean Parliament that announced the referendum was itself controlled by unidentified armed gunmen and took place behind locked doors.

Angus Robertson: Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there are legitimate and acceptable ways in which to pursue constitutional change—[Interruption]—and that, in such a way, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, and Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski have highlighted the forthcoming independence referendum in Scotland as an agreed process? [Interruption.] Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any referendum must fulfil the highest democratic standards, as in Scotland, and must not be held in dubious circumstances and at the barrel of a gun, as in Crimea?

William Hague: The referendum in Scotland was, of course, agreed in this Parliament, and will take place in a legal and fully democratic manner. The referendum in Crimea took place at 10 days’ notice, without the leaders of Ukraine being able to visit Crimea and without meeting any of the OSCE’s standards for democratic decisions or elections, which include verification of the existence of an accurate voter registration list and, in this instance, confidence that only people holding Ukrainian passports would be allowed to vote. None of those conditions were fulfilled. So of course this referendum is at the opposite end of any scale from the referendum that will take place in Scotland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

William Hague: I will give way a couple more times and then make progress, given the time restriction.

Charles Walker: May I say to my right hon. Friend that if Russia wants to be isolated, we should allow it to be isolated? Russia needs the west a great deal more than we need Russia. We should not be afraid of being robust in our actions against the nationalist actions of President Putin.

William Hague: I shall, of course, come to the further measures that we propose to take.

Frank Roy: Let me make it clear to the Foreign Secretary that not all Scots look inward all the time. May I ask whether he would be prepared to suspend Russia from the G8 as a consequence of its actions?

William Hague: I shall come to the measures that we can take in a moment, but we have already suspended preparations for the G8. The decision must of course be made by the G7 nations, but I think that the actions that Russia has taken make it highly likely that they will wish to establish meetings of their own, including the meeting of Foreign Ministers that was due to take place next month in Moscow. I shall return to those points shortly.
	The OSCE mission to Ukraine was refused entry to Crimea on 6 March, and there are reports of considerable irregularities including voting by Russian citizens, Crimean officials and militia taking mobile ballot boxes to the homes of residents to persuade them to vote, and a blackout of Ukrainian television channels. The outcome of the referendum also does not reflect the views of minorities in Crimea, as the region’s Muslim Tatar minority, who make up between 14% and 15% of the population, boycotted the referendum. Furthermore, the ballot paper asked the people of Crimea to decide either to become part of the Russian Federation or to revert to the highly ambiguous 1992 constitution. There was no option on the ballot paper for those who supported the status quo. The House should be in no doubt that this was a mockery of all democratic practice.
	The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe stated unequivocally last week that the referendum was illegal and should not go ahead. On Saturday the UN Security Council voted on a resolution condemning the referendum as “unconstitutional” and “illegitimate”, which was co-sponsored by 42 nations. Russia was completely isolated in vetoing the text, while 13 members of the Security Council voted in favour, and China abstained. Indeed, the House should be clear about the illegality not only of the referendum, but of all Russia’s recent actions in Crimea. Russia has advanced several wholly spurious arguments to justify—or try to justify—what it has done—

Several hon. Members: rose—

William Hague: I think that, when we consider our actions, it will be important for us to be clear about these matters, so I shall spend a few minutes talking about them, but first I will give way another couple of times.

John Baron: The Foreign Secretary is being very generous in giving way. He has been absolutely right to be robust in his response to this Russian aggression. He mentioned that there were 20,000 Russian troops in Crimea. While no one is advocating military intervention, does this not remind us that perhaps we should be fundamentally reassessing how much we spend on our armed forces? Although we may have the fourth or fifth largest defence budget, we rank 30th when it comes to deploying those forces overseas. That is a nonsense, given the extent of our global interests.

William Hague: What my hon. Friend has said may take us on to wider debates, but I should point out that we are one of the few countries in NATO that spend 2% or
	more of GDP on defence. I think that only four NATO countries do that now. I have argued in the past—including at NATO meetings—that other nations will need to increase their percentages over the coming years.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend has not yet mentioned the Council of Europe. Will this Government move to expel or suspend the Russian Federation from membership of the Council of Europe for this most blatant breach of the 1949 statute?

William Hague: The secretary-general of the Council of Europe and I will meet and be able to consider these things later this week when he visits London, but my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Of course, the Conservative Members who are in the Council of Europe have already moved away from the group that they were involved in with Russian members. One of the Russians listed for sanctions yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—in the Socialist Group. I say that not as a partisan point, but I hope Opposition Members will make their views on that clear.

Jim Shannon: I commend the Secretary of State on his strong stance on the recent situation in Ukraine. The EU has taken the step of imposing a sanction to stop 21 Russians. Does he feel the sanctions imposed by the EU, and at this moment the UK, will be strong enough stop any more Russian incursions into Ukraine, especially east Ukraine, where there are clearly problems?

William Hague: I will come back to that in a moment. It was important that we passed those measures, but it will be important to add to them, given what has happened even over the last 24 hours.

Guy Opperman: In 1994 Russia and all other key countries signed the Budapest memorandum, which preserved Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the clear breach by Russia of the 1994 memorandum, and how do we avoid reaching a situation in which we all feel the creeping threat of 1938?

William Hague: That gives me the cue to run through, and make clear to the House, the spurious arguments Russia has advanced for its actions, including on the Budapest memorandum.
	First, Russia says that it has acted in defence of Russian compatriots who were in danger from violence and facing a humanitarian crisis. However, the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities has stated that there is
	“no evidence of any violence or threats to the rights of Russian speakers”
	in Crimea. Indeed, there is no evidence of Russian compatriots being under threat anywhere in Ukraine, or of attacks on churches in eastern Ukraine, as Russia has alleged. It is not true that thousands of refugees are fleeing Ukraine into Russia, nor is there any threat
	to Russian military bases in Crimea, since the Ukrainian Government have pledged to abide by all existing agreements covering those bases.
	Numerous international mechanisms exist to protect the rights of minorities, and Russia’s own actions are the greatest threat to stability in Ukraine. On top of evidence of gangs of thugs being bussed across the Russian border to provoke clashes with communities in eastern Ukraine, over the weekend the Ukrainian Government reported that Russian forces have seized an oil and gas facility five miles outside Crimea.
	Secondly, to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), Russia claims not to be bound by any of its previous agreements with Ukraine, including the 1994 Budapest memorandum, on the grounds that the new Government in Ukraine are illegitimate. However, the interim Government, formed when former President Yanukovych fled his post, were approved by an overwhelming majority in a free vote in the Ukrainian Parliament including representatives from Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. The Government have restored the 2004 constitution and scheduled presidential elections. Their legitimacy and their commitment to democracy are clear.
	Moreover, treaties and international agreements are between states, not between Governments, and a change in Government does not in itself affect the binding force of those agreements. The commitments in the Budapest memorandum still stand, and Russia has flagrantly breached its pledge to, in the words of the memorandum,
	“refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.
	Thirdly, although Russia still denies that its troops are in Crimea, the Russians maintain that former President Yanukovych, whom they describe as the
	“legitimate president of Ukraine”,
	is entitled to request military assistance from Russia. That, too, is false, since the Ukrainian constitution is clear that only the Ukrainian Parliament has the authority to approve decisions on admitting foreign troops. The President has no such right, nor does the Crimean Parliament. In law and as a matter of logic it is clearly ludicrous to argue that a President who abandoned his post and fled has any right whatsoever to make any decisions about the future of that country, let alone to invite foreign troops into it.
	Fourthly, Russia argues that the people of Crimea have a right to self-determination and that it is their basic right to choose to join Russia, citing Kosovo as an alleged precedent, but there is no equivalence whatsoever between Crimea and Kosovo and, as Chancellor Merkel has said, it is “shameful” to make the comparison. NATO intervention in Kosovo followed ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity on a large scale. An international contact group, including Russia, was brought together to discuss the future of Kosovo after the conflict. The independence of Kosovo followed nine years of work by the Kosovan authorities to satisfy the conditions of independent statehood and mediation by a UN special envoy. None of these circumstances apply to Crimea.
	In all those areas, Russia is attempting to find justifications in precedent or law to excuse its actions in Ukraine and to muddy the waters of international opinion. What we are actually witnessing is the annexation
	of part of the sovereign territory of an independent European state through military force. The fall of President Yanukovych and the change of Government in Ukraine was a massive strategic setback for the Russian Government, who had made no secret of their desire to prevent Ukraine from moving towards closer association with the EU. Seen in that light the annexation of Crimea is a bid to regain the advantage, to restore Russian prestige and permanently to impair Ukraine’s functioning as a country, and given that Russia still maintains it has the right to intervene militarily anywhere on Ukrainian soil, there is a grave risk that we have not yet seen the worst of this crisis.

Gisela Stuart: Given that the Foreign Secretary referred to the unilateral redrawing of boundaries, which we have not seen for the last 25 years, neighbouring countries will become very important. Although Turkey is a member of the OSCE, have there been other, more detailed, discussions with Turkey as to how it could help the EU and the US efforts?

William Hague: Yes, there have been many discussions, including regular conference calls between EU Foreign Ministers and Secretary Kerry, which have also included my Turkish colleague, Foreign Minister Davutoglu, so Turkey’s opinions are very closely aligned with the ones I have been expressing. It of course has a particular affinity with the Tatar minority in Crimea, so Turkey is extremely anxious about this situation. It must choose its own measures, however: it is not a member of the European Union and it will choose, of course, its own measures as a sovereign state.

Brooks Newmark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if President Putin is willing to use the protection of Russian speakers as a pretext for going into Ukraine and he gets away with it, he might think about doing the same in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania where there are also Russian speakers?

William Hague: This is a source of profound anxiety to people in the Baltic states and other states of the former Soviet Union. Russia should take note that there has been very little, if any, diplomatic support for its position from central Asian states, who perhaps have some of the same anxieties.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is it not the case that Ukraine was one of the largest owners of nuclear weapons in the world and it gave up those nuclear weapons on the basis of peace and security, yet it has now been railroaded by Russia? What kind of example does this set for the world going forward?

William Hague: That is a very powerful point. When the Budapest memorandum was signed and the commitment was made not to use armed force against Ukraine, that was in exchange for its giving up of nuclear weapons. It sends a terrible signal to other nations that may be seeking nuclear weapons for Russia to behave in this way. This all means that if we do not stand up to such a profound breach of international agreements and the use of force to change borders in Europe in the 21st century, the credibility of the international order will be at stake and we will face more such crises in the future. Russia
	and others could conclude that it can intervene with impunity in other countries where there are either Russian compatriots or Orthodox populations. Indeed, it has been a Russian policy over a number of years to encourage such links and dependencies, through the issuing of millions of Russian passports in Ukraine and other countries bordering Russia. Events in Crimea form part of a pattern of Russian behaviour, including in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) mentioned three states that are members of NATO, but two other relevant states, Moldova and Belarus, are not. Although it is Russia, rather than the European Union, that has made strategic mistakes in Ukraine, does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU should make sure that it does not make any strategic mistakes with regard to Moldova and Belarus, and that it is robust in its dealings with those states?

William Hague: Of course we saw at the Vilnius summit the initialling of partnership agreements with both Moldova and Georgia, the two countries whose relationship with the EU is most advanced. It is very important that those agreements are signed and completed, and that our response to Ukraine sends out a message on our clear position against Russian interference in Moldova and Georgia, and indeed in other neighbouring states.

Chris Bryant: rose—

William Hague: I am conscious of the time, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then make more progress.

Chris Bryant: I wish to ask about the issue of impunity, because the Foreign Secretary is right to say that if Russia constantly learns that it can get away with things, it will continue to go further. For a long time this House has held the view that the people involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and in the corruption that he unveiled should be banned from this country. Why will the Government not just do it?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous debates, we already have the power, and we already use the power, to exclude from this country people guilty of human rights violations. The Home Secretary has made very clear her readiness to use that power.
	Back to the main strategic issue—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

William Hague: I must make some progress now.
	Our national interest depends on a rules-based international system where nations uphold bilateral and global agreements in a whole variety of areas, from trade to security. We have worked with Russia in recent years to uphold agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty. The credibility of the international system rests on there being costs attached to breaking binding commitments and refusing to address disputes through peaceful diplomacy. The door to diplomacy, of course, always remains open, as it has been throughout this crisis. We have in recent days continued our efforts to
	persuade Russia to enter into direct talks with Ukraine and to take part in an international contact or co-ordination group, but faced with these actions it will be necessary to increase the pressure and our response.
	Following the invasion of Crimea, the European Union took action at the Council meeting on 6 March to suspend visa liberalisation talks and talks on a new EU-Russia co-operation agreement. The Council also agreed that unless Russia de-escalated the crisis, we would move to a second stage of sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes against named individuals. Yesterday, the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, which I attended, decided to introduce such measures, including travel restrictions and an asset freeze on 21 individuals, not just in Crimea, but in Russia. These people are responsible for actions that undermine or threaten Ukraine, and the measures have been taken in close co-ordination with the United States and allies such as Canada, Japan and Australia. Preparatory work is under way for a third tier of sanctions, including economic and trade measures. The European Council will consider further measures later this week, in the light of President Putin’s speech today and Russia’s actions in recent days. The British Government are clear that further measures need to be taken and, in the light of President Putin’s speech today, we will argue at the Council for the strongest position and range of measures on which agreement can be obtained in the European Union.

Malcolm Rifkind: The most important thing the Foreign Secretary has just said is that the further measures the United Kingdom will be seeking will include economic and trade sanctions against Russia because of its annexation of Crimea. Will he confirm that that is indeed the case, and that the UK will seek financial sanctions and economic sanctions against Russia, and seek to persuade other countries to go down that route?

William Hague: Let me be precise about what I said. I said that the preparation is under way for a third tier of sanctions. The Prime Minister said after the last European Council that we must be ready to pursue far-reaching measures, including in the economic, trade and financial areas. I have also said today that at the Council, which takes place on Thursday and Friday this week, the Prime Minister will argue for the strongest position and range of measures on which agreement can be obtained. That is the position I have set out.

Mark Reckless: Is it not the case that many senior Russians want to come not to Brussels or to Frankfurt, but to London? Should Britain not consider imposing financial freezing orders or travel restrictions unilaterally, if necessary?

William Hague: I would in no way rule that out. The measures we agreed yesterday apply in Britain as well as the rest of the European Union, and of course we retain the ability to do what my hon. Friend has said.
	As the House knows, we have decided with our G7 partners to suspend preparations for the G8 summit in Sochi this summer.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

William Hague: This is part of my answer to colleagues. We are also determined to ensure that we are taking all appropriate national measures. The Prime Minister announced last week that we would review all UK bilateral military co-operation not subject to treaty obligations with Russia, and I can announce now that we have suspended all such co-operation. Included in that are: the finalising of the military technical co-operation agreement; the cancellation of this year’s French, Russian, UK and US naval exercise; and the suspension of a proposed Royal Navy ship visit to St Petersburg and of all senior military visits unless in direct support of UK objectives.
	We believe that in the current circumstances there is a compelling case for EU member states to act on defence export licences. The UK will now, with immediate effect, suspend all extant licences and application processing for licences for direct export to Russia for military and dual-use items destined for units of the Russian armed forces or other state agencies which could be or are being deployed against Ukraine. We will also suspend licences for exports to third countries for incorporation into equipment for export to Russia where there is a clear risk that the end product will be used against Ukraine. All such licences were reviewed following the Prime Minister’s statement on 10 March, and so we are able to act immediately. We encourage other European nations to take similar action.
	As well as responding to Russia’s aggression in Crimea, it is also vital that the international community increases its financial and technical support to Ukraine through the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, to ensure that an economic crisis does not contribute to further political instability.

Several hon. Members: rose—

William Hague: I am going to give way just twice more so that other Members can speak.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the Speaker of the Transnistrian Parliament has written to the Speaker of the Duma asking for Transnistria to become part of the Russian Federation? Are we not on the edge of a serious situation? Can my right hon. Friend do more to unite the EU in speaking with one voice on sanctions?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We succeeded yesterday in making sure that the EU speaks with one voice, and I believe that the Prime Minister will be able to do that later this week, too.

Gerald Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s measures and congratulate him on a pretty robust stance by the British Government, even if other Governments are less robust. However, does he in all honesty believe that the measures agreed with our European partners are going to make the blindest bit of difference to Mr Putin, who is on a roll? What would happen if he did enter eastern Ukraine this week?

William Hague: I believe that there are further measures that can be taken that will make a difference and, indeed, that a different relationship may be needed with
	Russia in the future, which I will mention at the conclusion of my remarks. In the interests of the House, I feel I should move to that conclusion.
	We are absolutely clear with the Ukrainian authorities that the support we give them must be matched by economic and political reforms. I gave them this clear message when I was in Kiev two weeks ago and again yesterday when I met the acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine. Given that they have got many difficult decisions to take, it is vital that they build up support in Ukraine and in the international community, and part of the way to do that is to tackle corruption at the very outset. We will insist on such reforms and use the technical assistance I announced to the House in my last statement to help to bring them about. We are sending technical teams to Kiev to support reforms to the energy and social security sectors, and to work with the authorities on their business environment and public financial management. We are working up UK support for a flexible and rapid funding mechanism to support economic reform, and we are carrying out further work on asset recovery. We are working with Germany to support financial management, and we are working to support parliamentary and local elections.
	At the emergency European Council, in response to a request by the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Heads of State and Government agreed to sign the political parts of the EU-Ukraine association agreement, which is an important symbol of the EU’s support for Ukraine. In taking those steps Ukraine should not be, and is not being, asked to choose between Russia and the EU. It should be possible for Ukraine to enjoy strong relations with both, and it is in Russia’s economic interest that it does. I found on my visit to Ukraine that even Ukrainians in the south and east of the country do not welcome Russian intervention. Even those with many links to Russia, or those from the Party of Regions, believe in the independence and territorial integrity of their country.
	By treating the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum strategic context, Russia itself will lose strategically. Russia miscalculated its ability to control and influence the political situation in Ukraine during the events that led up to President Yanukovych’s departure. I would argue that by seizing Crimea, Russia has miscalculated again, because it has alienated a huge majority of public opinion in Ukraine, done immense damage to Russia’s reputation all over the world and increased the likelihood of European countries taking long-term action to reduce the balance of leverage in their relationship with Russia.
	This is part of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). We should be ready to contemplate a new state of relations between Russia and the west in the coming years, which is different from that of the past 20 years.

Nicola Blackwood: Will the Secretary of State give way?

William Hague: I will not give way again, because I want other hon. Members to be able to speak.
	That relationship would be one in which institutions such as the G8 work without Russia; military co-operation and defence exports are permanently curtailed; decisions are accelerated to reduce European dependence on Russian energy exports; foreign policy plays a bigger role in energy policy; Russia has less influence in Europe; and European
	nations do more to guard against a repetition of the flagrant violation of international norms that we have seen in Crimea in recent weeks. That is not the relationship that we want or have sought to have with Russia, but it is the relationship that Russia’s actions look like they will force us to adopt.
	Over the past four years, we have worked to improve relations with Russia. We have worked closely with it on Iran and on many areas of UN Security Council business, but there is no doubt that if no progress is made on Ukraine, relations between Russia and many nations in the world, including ours, will be permanently affected in this way. Russia should be clear about the long-term consequences. In the United Kingdom, we will not shy away from those consequences. On that, in this House and with our allies, we will be clear. We will be clear about our own national interest, which is in Ukraine being able to make its own decisions, in the upholding of international law and the UN charter, and in the prevention of future violations of independent European states.

Douglas Alexander: I welcome the motion and this debate on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and the British Government’s response. At the outset, let me make it clear that the Government have our support in seeking an urgent de-escalation of the crisis and in their efforts to date to secure a sustainable diplomatic resolution that respects and upholds the international law of which the Foreign Secretary has just spoken.
	The crisis in Crimea represents perhaps the most significant security threat on the European continent in decades, and it poses a real threat to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia’s recent actions have also reaffirmed the existence of a geopolitical fault line that the west ignores at its peril. Given the events still unfolding on the ground and the speech made by President Putin in the past couple of hours, few would claim that the international community’s response to date has been effective in securing a change of approach from Russia. Since the issue was last debated in the House, an illegal referendum has taken place in Crimea in the shadow of Russian guns, President Putin has signed an order recognising Crimean independence and approved a draft Bill on its accession, and Ukraine’s Parliament in Kiev only yesterday authorised a partial mobilisation of volunteers for the armed forces’ new reserve. The potential for further escalation of the crisis, therefore, remains real and deeply troubling. The international community must do more to encourage Russia to engage in constructive dialogue, while simultaneously applying greater pressure if President Putin refuses to change course.
	I want to focus on three key issues. First, I will assess the international community’s response to date and why it is has so far not achieved the desired outcome. Secondly, I will outline the possible mechanisms by which the west can now engage Russia more effectively. Finally, I will look at a series of proposed steps that should be considered for raising the costs and consequences for Russia if the crisis is not swiftly resolved.

Bernard Jenkin: What, in the right hon. Gentleman’s view, does Russia need to do to bring about a de-escalation of the situation?

Douglas Alexander: First and foremost, we must avoid a situation in which escalation continues as a result of the arrival of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Secondly, there must be a meaningful dialogue between the Ukrainian authorities and the Russian authorities, and I will explain what I mean by that in the course of my remarks. Thirdly, there must be a recognition that the international community remains unyielding in its opposition to the illegal referendum that took place in Crimea last weekend. Alas, the Kremlin has not yet recognised or acted on any of those steps, but I hope that it will do so in the coming days. Why do I make that point? Ukraine’s future still hangs in the balance, so today’s debate is welcome and takes place at a crucial time.
	The recent trajectory of Ukrainian politics hinges on the events of 21 November when Yanukovych’s Cabinet abandoned an agreement on closer trade ties with the EU, and instead sought closer co-operation with the Russian Federation. Days later, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians descended on Maidan square, and for months the various protests endured and grew on the streets of Kiev. On 20 February, in a vibrant European capital, Government snipers turned their fire on protesters and the day ended with makeshift morgues lining the pavements of that historic city. On 27 February, just four days after the end of the Sochi winter Olympics, Russian troops effectively occupied Crimea under the false pretence of protecting its Russian-speaking population.
	Ukraine faces a generational choice: in the decades ahead, can it face both east and west? Russia, too, is faced with two alternative futures: greater integration or greater isolation within the existing international order. It is right that the international community’s approach to date has been characterised by engagement with Russia where possible but by appropriate diplomatic pressures where required, which is why I welcome the draft UN resolution criticising the referendum in Ukraine’s Crimea region. Recent events in Ukraine are a key test of resolve for the European Union in particular. This clear and flagrant breach of international law has happened on Europe’s doorstep, and the burden of responding to the crisis rests heavily on European Union leaders.
	It is worth acknowledging from the outset that getting agreement among the EU 28 is always difficult, particularly when a number of member states are vulnerable to Russian action on issues such as energy supply. I therefore welcome the steps that have already been agreed by the EU, including the suspension of negotiations with Russia on visa liberalisation and targeted asset freezes and visa bans against those responsible for threatening Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence.
	Despite those important steps, I regret that, to date, the EU’s unity in condemning Russia’s military aggression has not been matched by a shared resolve to act more decisively in extracting costs and consequences for Russia’s actions. Only four days before this week’s Foreign Affair’s Council, Chancellor Merkel made it clear that if Russia continued on its current course, it would cause
	“massive damage to Russia, both economically and politically.”
	Following her comments, and ahead of the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, the press quoted reports that more than 100 names were being considered for targeted measures by the EU. At that Foreign Affairs Council meeting, a list of 21 individuals was agreed, and only 13 of them were Russian. Given that the objective of the sanctions is to alter the calculus of risk in the minds
	of the Russian leadership, it would be unfortunate if confused messages were sent to Moscow, however inadvertently, at this critical time.

Gisela Stuart: My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the EU speaking with one voice. Does he not think that it was slightly naive of the French, German and Polish Foreign Ministers to take action without bringing the United States into the meeting? That would have shown unity not only within the EU but with our allies in north America.

Douglas Alexander: I have no criticism of the French, German and Polish Foreign Ministers. We saw from the dynamic on the streets of Kiev that that potential agreement was overtaken by events, including the fleeing of the President from Ukraine. I do not believe that any reasonable criticism can be levelled at the European Union for somehow ignoring or being unwilling to work with our friends, colleagues and allies in the United States. Indeed, one of the brighter shafts of light amid the darkness has been the degree of effective co-operation between European leaders and the US Secretary of State John Kerry in the recent days and weeks. This is a big geopolitical moment and, as the Foreign Secretary made clear, all of us in the west—in the European Union and the United States—have a strong interest in upholding the international order that has lasted in Europe since the second world war.

Brooks Newmark: Germany is particularly vulnerable to economic sanctions in relation to energy. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should work hard to convince the Americans to lift their restrictions on energy exports to Europe, as that would take pressure off Germany in this regard?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman’s point is well taken. My research in recent days has shown me that, notwithstanding the importance of looking again at the capacity for, say, liquid natural gas to be exported to the European Union from the United States, given its developing capabilities in shale gas and shale oil, this is not simply a matter of regarding energy as a strategic asset. We must also take into account the capabilities and facilities at the ports, for example. This is a longer-term endeavour and, critical though it is to be able to strengthen the resilience and diversity of the European Union’s energy supplies, the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests would not provide an immediate resolution to the crisis. It is important that we look at the issue, however.

Paul Flynn: Would my right hon. Friend like to correct the wrong impression that the Foreign Secretary gave—possibly inadvertently—when he referred to a Russian member of the Socialist Group of the Council of Europe? There is a tiny and uninfluential group of Russians in the Socialist Group, but the group of which the Conservatives have been members for a long time is dominated by Putin’s representatives and those of a similar character from other countries. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the long record of the Socialist Group in opposing Putin, especially on Chechnya?

Douglas Alexander: I am certainly happy to echo my hon. Friend’s point about the actions of the Socialist Group in relation to Chechnya, but given the severity of this moment in international affairs, it ill behoves the House to descend into a partisan exchange on which groups our respective representatives belong to in the Council of Europe. I understand that action has been taken by Conservative members of the Council of Europe—I am sure that the Leader of the House will set out the details at the end of the debate today—but it is important to speak with one voice at this critical moment in international affairs.

Charles Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Russia is not the power that it once was? It is riddled with corruption, and with a population of only 143 million, it has a failing demographic. Male life expectancy there is barely 60. Russia is not the great bear that it pretends to be.

Douglas Alexander: I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. There has been too much commentary in recent days on the strategic genius of President Putin. In fact, he has been obliged to act out of weakness, rather than strength. Let us remember that this was the Russian President who viewed a Eurasian union as a credible alternative to the European Union. He has been unable to use soft power to secure the support of his potential allies and neighbours; instead, he has had to use hard power as a consequence of his unpopularity and of his sense of a loss of control following the events that we witnessed on the streets of Kiev.
	This is not simply a matter of Russia facing demographic challenges, or of its abject failure to diversify its economy beyond the primary extraction of energy to move towards a more advanced form of economy, or of the very real corruption that continues to bedevil Russian society and the Russian economy; this is also about the fact that Putin is unable to secure the willing support of neighbouring countries, and that he is having to secure support through the use of military force. That represents a significant failure, rather than a success. Let us remember that President Putin has just spent $50 billion trying to accumulate soft power with the Sochi Olympics. What a waste of $50 billion, given that the international community is now seeing the Russian leadership’s true character through its action in Ukraine.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is it not another important factor that the Russian Federation is now much more dependent on the international community than was the case in the old days of the Soviet Union? In those days, it had no stock exchange, and the rouble is now much more exchangeable than it was. Putin reportedly had to spend £2.5 billion shoring up the rouble in one day when he first went into Crimea.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman’s point is well taken. Russia is now significantly more integrated in the global economy than it was at the time of the invasion of Georgia in 2008, let alone during the earlier era of Soviet expansionism, to which many people have drawn comparisons recently.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I want to make a little more progress.
	Today, the European Union is Russia’s largest economic partner, with an annual trade of £275 billion. The UK alone handles at least £2 billion of Russian business in financial services a year. Let us also remember that as a result of the corruption that I have mentioned, the Russian economy has witnessed significant levels of capital flight in recent years, as well as rising levels of Russian prosperity as a consequence of energy. In that sense, there is a real and enduring vulnerability among the Russian elites to the travel bans and asset freezes that have been put on the table by other European leaders in recent days. Let us also not forget that a central part of President Putin’s claim to legitimacy in the Russian Federation has been based on a guarantee of rising prosperity. However, we have already seen the effect that the proposed actions by European leaders has had on the rouble and the Russian stock exchange.
	In the immediate term, the most powerful means to alter the Kremlin’s course is to target those elites on whom it relies for its support. That is why I hope that at the European Council meeting due to take place later this week, EU leaders will consider further expanding the list of Ukrainian and Russian officials subjected to these targeted measures. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s indication that that appears to be the British Government’s approach, ahead of the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday. I would also be grateful if the Leader of the House could confirm in his winding up whether, at that Council meeting, the UK Government will be urging the cancellation of the EU-Russia summit, which is still scheduled to take place in Sochi in June.
	Labour has also argued that further diplomatic pressure can and should be applied in the short term by seeking agreement among the G7 on suspending Russia from the G8 group of the world’s largest economies unless President Putin changes course. I was intrigued by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks at the Dispatch Box on that subject. I understand that indications have been given by No. 10 since this debate began that the British Government could take further action in relation to the G7, as distinct from the G8. Will the Leader of the House clarify the position, not only on the cancellation of the G8 meeting but on Russia’s suspension from the G8? I think that the Foreign Secretary has indicated the willingness of the G7 countries to meet together as an alternative grouping to the G8, as a result of the Russians’ recent flagrant breach of the law.
	Given the precedents that have been set by Russia, the European Union must also be prepared to increase the pressure if the short-term measures are unsuccessful. I certainly welcome the bilateral measures, which we heard about for the first time this afternoon, relating to UK-Russian military co-operation and to the steps that the UK Government are taking in relation to arms exports. In the medium term, the European Union must be prepared to consider stronger sanctions against Russia’s broader economic interests, such as its energy exports or its banking sector. Such decisions should not be taken lightly, and the burden on EU domestic markets must not be ignored, but, if required, those options must remain available to European leaders when they gather in the coming days.
	Alongside short and medium-term pressure on Russia, it is also surely vital that the European Union considers the long-term strategic implications of the current crisis. I welcome the fact that at yesterday’s meeting EU Foreign Ministers met the EU Energy Commissioner. I encourage the EU to undertake urgent work on exploring ways of proliferating and diversifying European energy imports in the future.
	Let me turn now to my final substantive point. As the Opposition, we do not believe that the crisis can be resolved simply by applying ever more pressure on Russia to change course. Effective engagement with Russia remains key to helping secure the diplomatic de-escalation and resolution of the crisis. In particular, the work done by EU High Representative Cathy Ashton in engaging with President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in recent weeks has been welcome. I also welcome the dialogue that took place last week in London between the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov. At that meeting, the Secretary of State made it clear that in the view of the United States, Russia has legitimate interests—historical, cultural and strategic—in Ukraine.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of this part of his speech. Despite everything that has been said over the past hour, we do have a bit of a problem in that a majority of people living in Crimea want to be part of Russia, and they had been part of Russia for 300 years, apart from administrative diktat in recent times. They also have a right to self-determination.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman’s point is a moot one given the circumstances in which the referendum took place. No one disputes the fact that there is a significant number of Russian speakers within Crimea, but it is a dangerous path to walk to suggest that the circumstances in which that referendum was conducted—in the shadow of Russian guns—in any way provide a free and fair expression of the will of the people of Crimea. Incidentally, it was also a flagrant breach of the Ukrainian constitution. Although it is important to recognise that Russia has legitimate interests, it is equally important to be clear and categoric in our condemnation of the referendum that took place at the weekend.

Ian Austin: Is it not also the case that just last year, opinion polls showed that only 23% of people in Crimea wanted to be part of Russia?

Douglas Alexander: As my hon. Friend knows, in circumstances such as this I am often given to say that opinion polls come and go, but I can assure him that he is absolutely right in recognising the fact that the poll that took place this week cannot be taken as a serious reflection of the breadth of opinion across Crimea. As the Foreign Secretary said, the Tatars, who for understandable historical reasons have very deep anxieties about what the future holds, given the past experience of deportation to Siberia, largely boycotted the poll. There are clear instances of intimidation, and anything that would be considered free and fair is very far from what took place in Crimea this weekend.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As I expected, he is making some measured comments. Is not the more fundamental point here that if we concede a precedent in Crimea, we are saying that it is open house for Russia to annex what ever part of its zone of influence it likes?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman eloquently highlights the extent of cross-party agreement on this issue. This is a huge geopolitical moment, and if we take our multilateral obligations seriously—as a permanent member of the Security Council, a member of NATO and a member of the European Union—these moments test us as an international community. In that sense, the signal that would be sent out, however inadvertently, by an isolationist attitude that says that this is a far away country and that there is nothing to worry about has very dangerous historical precedent. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a necessary corrective to some of the commentary that we have read in newspapers in recent days.

Simon Danczuk: What has not been mentioned is that we have a large Ukrainian diaspora in the UK and indeed in Rochdale, some of whom I met on Saturday night. Many of them are extremely worried about their family in Ukraine and the fact that the problem might spread. Is there any reassurance that can be given to those people?

Douglas Alexander: I fully appreciate that this must be a deeply troubling time for all those with friends, relatives and kith and kin in Ukraine. The best mechanism by which they can get the assurances they understandably want on behalf of their families is the diplomatic resolution that I trust the British Government are endeavouring to deliver, and that we need to work in co-operation with our international partners to secure.

Zac Goldsmith: rose—

Douglas Alexander: Let me try to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the need to wind up, given the enthusiasm of Back Benchers to make their contributions.
	There is an important point in relation to the tone of the exchanges with Russia. As the Foreign Secretary acknowledged, it is vital that in those exchanges a clear message is sent that this is not a “zero-sum game” between Russia and the west. I hope that it will be in that spirit that EU leaders agree the political part of the association agreement with Ukraine, which is due to be signed in the coming days. As well as sustaining this dialogue between Russia, the US and the EU, we should not forget the urgency of facilitating direct dialogue between the Russian and Ukrainian authorities.
	I note that the EU has previously supported the establishment of a contact group, and note further that only yesterday Russia proposed the establishment of a support group for Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that this group would push for Ukrainian recognition of the Crimean referendum, which is clearly a difficult issue for the international community, urge Ukraine to implement portions of the 21 February peace deal, encourage Ukraine to adopt a new constitution setting out broad powers for the country’s regions, and require Ukraine to uphold military and political neutrality.
	When the Leader of the House winds up the debate, I would appreciate it if he could set out the British Government’s thinking on both these proposals—on the contact group that has been advocated by Germany and the European Union and on the contact group that was proposed by the Russian Foreign Minister yesterday.
	In conclusion, the Russian invasion of Crimea demands international condemnation. We should uphold the principle of international law and recognise Ukraine as a sovereign state. Its cultural, linguistic, and historical affinities with Russia do not, and never will, justify the recent breaching of the international multilateral legal norms that have guided our actions since world war two. Furthermore, what those who oppose further specific economic and financial measures must understand is that there will be real and lasting consequences for the west of not demonstrating resolve in the days and weeks ahead. I fear that the consequences are already clear. We have a Russia emboldened in its ambitions towards Ukraine; a central Europe ever more fearful of future political destabilisation and military insecurity; and a United States increasingly concerned about Europe's willingness to act, even diplomatically and economically, in the face of such threats. A combination of deft diplomacy, shared resolve and a unified response are the best means by which we can de-escalate this continuous and dangerous crisis, and ultimately re-affirm Ukrainian sovereignty and preserve European security. The British Government will have our support in working to achieve that desired outcome.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In the light of the very large number of Members seeking to contribute to this debate, I have, sadly, to impose a five-minute limit on Back Bench speeches with immediate effect.

Malcolm Rifkind: The crisis we are living through is a crisis not just for Ukraine but for every European country, including the United Kingdom. For the first time since 1945, a European state has invaded the territory of another European state and annexed part of its territory. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, President Obama and other European leaders have stressed, as has the shadow Foreign Secretary, that this is a crucial moment in the history of Europe. That fine rhetoric will be justified only if it is matched by our response to what is happening and what could still happen. Sadly, the measures on visa controls and asset freezes for individuals, which have been announced by both the United States and the European Union, are a pathetic and feeble response. They do not match the seriousness of the situation, which those implementing the responses have acknowledged that we face at the present time.
	The issue is not simply one of Crimea. Crimea is of no strategic importance to Russia—Sevastopol is important but it has had control of Sevastopol for years. The Russian objective is effectively to control all the areas of the former Soviet state, not necessarily by reintegrating them into the Russian Federation but by ensuring that they become Russian dependencies. That will happen because we have seen already that the response to the
	measures announced so far has been one of contempt by Moscow, and that could continue if we do not respond more robustly.
	The only way in which we can effectively hope to have a significant impact on Mr Putin's thinking is through financial and economic sanctions. That approach has become much more effective in recent years. We know that Iran is at the negotiating table because of the success of the financial and banking sanctions it has experienced. Dare I say it, but the United Kingdom withdrew from Suez because of the United States’ threat of financial sanctions against this country—a threat that was very effective even many years ago.
	The Russian economy is not the Soviet economy. It is much more integrated and I noted with some interest that the chairman of Gazprom apparently sold all his shares in the company some days before the crisis reached its peak. Financial sanctions will not change the world, but Putin would have to live with a Russian economy in which no other part of the world would invest and in which billions were coming off the Russian stock exchange. The crucial ingredient is access to the world financial markets, particularly the financial markets of this country, of Europe and of the United States.
	I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I was encouraged when he said that the further measures for which the British Government will be pressing will be economical and in trade: they have to be, and they have to include financial sanctions. Of course, one cannot impose sanctions against another country without accepting some difficulties for oneself. I was encouraged that the Financial Times, of all newspapers, given its normal clientele, said this morning in its editorial that the Europeans
	“must decide whether it attaches more importance to its international credibility than its commercial interest.”
	I believe that that is a proper reflection of the measure of events.
	We must also face the crucial question of what happens if the British Government are robust—I hope that they will be; in the light of what the Foreign Secretary has said, perhaps they are being robust, but I shall wait to see what happens—but cannot get the agreement of some other European countries. What will happen if they remain, in my words, feeble in their response? Western unity is important—I do not doubt that—but western action is even more important. If, at the end of the day, we cannot get unanimity, I would want to see the British Government, as well as, I hope, the American Government and those of a range of European countries, imposing financial sanctions, even if we cannot get full unanimity in the international community.
	We must ensure two things. First, Mr Putin must feel financial pain in the Russian economy because of what he is doing. Secondly, we must be able to look ourselves in the eye and say that we did all that we could, all that was reasonable and all that was available to us to ensure that the horrors of the 1930s were not repeated, not in exactly the same form, but in a form that will damage European security and stability for a generation to come.

Ben Bradshaw: I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) for his superb speech and I agree with every single word he said.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have allowed time for the debate, although given the seriousness of the threat to security and peace in Europe—the worst for decades—it would have been nice if we had had a little more time. Perhaps we can have some more time in the days and weeks to come.
	Given the time limit, I shall restrict my comments to asset freezes and travel bans. I welcome what was announced yesterday by the European Union and United States, but the mood of this House is that that did not go nearly far enough. As the Foreign Secretary will know, Russia is based on a kleptocracy and a lot of the corrupt senior officials and politicians around President Putin have their money in London. Russia’s own central bank has estimated that two thirds of the Russian assets and money in London come from the proceeds of crime and corruption, yet all the organisations that campaign on this issue, from Transparency International to anti-corruption organisations, have said for a long time that the Britain has a very poor record of doing anything about that.
	Two years ago, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) tabled a motion in this House that was unanimously passed. It called on the Government to take measures similar to those taken by the United States and along the lines of the Magnitsky Act that would have imposed asset freezes and travel bans on named Russian officials who were associated with the outrageous torture and murder of the Russian lawyer, Magnitsky. I am afraid that the Government did nothing and, as far as I can see, have done nothing since. None of the names announced by the European Union is on the Magnitsky list. They all seem to have a very narrow association with the immediate military action in the Crimea.
	The Foreign Secretary said that he had the powers to act, so if the Government want to do something now why does he not announce—the Leader of the House could even announce this when he winds up the debate—that the Government will honour the will of this House, unanimously passed two years ago, and introduce similar measures to those introduced by the Americans? Only when the kleptocracy and the elite around President Putin begin to feel some of the pain of the sanctions and measures that have been outlined will Putin feel anything and realise how intolerable his actions were.
	I appeal to the Government to go much further at the European Council on Thursday and finally to take meaningful action on the money laundering and dirty money in London and against those Russian officials who are propping up Putin and putting their money here.

Menzies Campbell: I have the advantage of agreeing with a great deal of what has been said, with one exception: the intervention made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), whom I regret to see is no longer in his place, was, I think, particularly inept. He and his colleagues complain when those of us who are opposed to independence argue that it might lead to introspection, but I rather fancy that he has made my point more directly than I could have.
	As has already been acknowledged, the issue is not just about the fate of Ukraine and Crimea. It has long-term consequences for European security and the transatlantic alliance. I admit to some miscalculations about Russia. I did not calculate how the collective mood of Russia was so ready to respond to a dominant and ruthless leadership, albeit out of weakness. Nor did I expect that the perestroika and glasnost that we welcomed so enthusiastically in this country and elsewhere would become so despised at home in Russia. Nor did I expect that that disillusionment would spawn a determination to try to recreate a sphere of influence.
	It is worth reminding ourselves on this occasion that it was Mr Putin who said that the break-up of the Soviet Union had been the single greatest foreign policy mistake of the 20th century, conveniently ignoring the fact that the break-up was inevitable for a variety of reasons that we need not discuss today. Anyone who heard his speech today will have found a great deal of difficulty in accepting the proposition that he did not want to restore the cold war when he somehow felt it was necessary to use the language of the cold war to support that proposition.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way and I agree with what he is saying. Although we cannot ignore or get away from how the mood has changed in many parts of Russia, we should nevertheless not forget that many people in Russia still do not support what the Government are doing. Indeed, tens of thousands marched for peace in Moscow just a few days ago. We should remember that and pay tribute to those who, with great courage, are still speaking up for human rights and democracy in Russia itself.

Menzies Campbell: I admire the courage of those who seek to protest against a leadership so potentially brutal and determined as that explained by Mr Putin.
	The other calculation that I made, and perhaps others would admit to this too, was that we should have seen the signs in relation to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is easy to point to the history, but it is much more difficult to determine how to respond to the contemporary issues.

Mark Reckless: My right hon. and learned Friend mentions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As chairman of the all-party group on Georgia I have been struck by how our Georgian friends see Russian interests not so much in Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Crimea but in intimidating Governments, whether in Tbilisi or Kiev.

Menzies Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
	I was turning to the question of how to respond. Since the very beginning, it has been accepted that a military engagement in response simply is not possible. If we consider carefully what the prospect would have been for a nuclear alliance facing a nuclear power across Europe, albeit initially in conventional terms, the risks of something much more serious would be profound. As a parallel, let us remember the atmosphere when, in Pakistan and India, across the line of control there were
	a million men under arms, and the possibility that some provocation or something of the kind could have brought grievous consequences.
	Today, the Russians have offered a contact group. That is disingenuous in the extreme, because the basis upon which that offer is made is that Ukraine and the rest of the world should accept and endorse the illegality of the conduct that has given rise to the crisis of the moment.
	How do we proceed? We proceed, I hope, diplomatically, by persevering and promoting the isolation that Russia found itself in at the Security Council—an isolation so considerable that China, which would normally be predicted to take the side of Russia, decided to abstain. On sanctions, I agree with much that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said a moment or two ago. We have to ask ourselves what the cost would be, but we also have to ask ourselves what the cost of not imposing sanctions would be, and take a long-term rather than a short-term view.
	Russia is now emboldened by energy resources and fuelled by imagined slights, with a new confidence, but as has already been pointed out, that confidence is built on very shaky economic grounds. If there is an area of fallibility, that is in the Russian economy. That is why anything that can be agreed in order to impose pressure on that economy seems to me entirely worthwhile. I understand that Crimea has decided to adopt the rouble as its currency—a case of joining the sinking ship, rather than leaving it.
	I accept the point that has been powerfully made by a number of contributors that the European Union and the United States of America must stand together. To quote a former Prime Minister whom I do not commonly quote, “This is no time to wobble.”

Zac Goldsmith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very eloquent speech and has dwelt considerably on the pressures that we need to bring to bear on Russia. Will he explain what he believes a successful, realistic resolution will look like?

Menzies Campbell: I do not think anyone can answer that question. My hon. Friend is right to ask the question, but I do not believe anyone can answer it at this stage, because in the end there will have to be a diplomatic solution. The one thing that is essential is that when these negotiations and discussions break out, as we hope they will, those on behalf of the Ukraine, the European Union and the United States are firmly in a position to say that if a diplomatic solution does not work, more can be done.
	One of the issues that has been before us in Europe recently is the question of short-range nuclear weapons. There was a possibility of disarmament, both from the United States’ holdings and from Russia. That is no longer possible. In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, people will be relieved that that possibility is off the table.

Mark Hendrick: Russia’s military deployment into Ukrainian territory is extremely disturbing and without justification. That invasion is reminiscent
	of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. I was just a boy at the time but I can still remember those events in 1968. It took nearly 30 years to get the Soviets out of Czechoslovakia. The only difference in the case of the recent invasion by Russia is that it was done by troops who did not dare to speak their name. We saw troops in what were obviously Russian uniforms, but with no insignia identifying them as Russian. We saw people in masks or covering their faces who did not respond to questions from interviewers.
	Russia is a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. That was hardly about security or co-operation in Europe. It was a unilateral invasion for its own purposes. I am a member of the OSCE parliamentary assembly and regularly meet Russian, Ukrainian and other members from Parliaments across the OSCE area. To me, recent events are a disgrace. What happened beggars belief. There has been mention of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia. If the conflict is not resolved fairly quickly by economic pressure, engagement and negotiation, it could turn into another of those frozen conflicts that we have seen elsewhere.
	Strong and concerted action needs to be taken. I go some way with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who said the response needs to go much further. The Foreign Secretary indicated today that there may be movement towards a G7 and away from a G8 if the G8 decides on such action.
	I have acted as an observer at elections in Russia. I went to observe the last Duma elections in St Petersburg and saw the sorts of things that can happen. We know that the referendum was illegal. It was not sanctioned in Kiev or anywhere other than in Moscow. As an observer at those elections in St Petersburg, I remember watching a parliamentary count, seeing the figures being given out, seeing two Russian police officers escort those ballot boxes into a van, and the van driving off to nowhere. At the count afterwards, the figures that we were given were totally different from those assigned to that polling station when we were there. So we know how Putin and his people can organise elections. We know that there have been elections in Russia when the turnout has been more than 100%. The difference between the figures that were given for the number of people in Crimea who wanted to be part of Russia and the figures that we saw last weekend tells its own story.
	Economic sanctions are important, as is energy policy. In the UK and particularly in my county, Lancashire, we are looking at fracking and shale gas as a future option. We also produce all the nuclear rods for the nuclear power stations throughout the country, so Britain can look forward to self-sustainable energy. Other parts of Europe and the European Union are not so fortunate. They will have to wean themselves off Russian gas and oil, because if Russia chooses to defend Russian-speaking people, as it would say, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Transnistria, Moldova or any other part of Europe, the omens are very bad indeed. I take the point that was made earlier that unless the present situation is handled properly, it could be a re-run of the 1930s. Firm action now by our Government and Governments in Europe and the United States is essential if this is not to descend into the spectacle that we saw in the 1930s.

Richard Ottaway: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), a valuable member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	Russia is not listening to the international community. It was totally alone in the Security Council, with even its closest ally, China, abstaining. I strongly suspect that in a wider vote in the UN, it would have few friends. We should look hard at Russia’s motives. I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), when he says that Russia is operating from a position of weakness at present. I believe its primary motive is to protect its naval ports at Sevastapol which, together with Tartus in Syria, is vital to its interests. If Ukraine moves closer to Europe, Russia will not feel comfortable about having a major strategic asset on what it would consider foreign land.
	Secondly, I believe that Russia views with growing alarm plans to build gas pipelines across Ukraine. This weakens its dominant position as a major supplier of gas to the European Union. Thirdly, Ukraine, the second most powerful economy in the former Soviet Union, is a linchpin to its plan to build the so-called Eurasian Economic Union, a Moscow-led version of the European Union. The fourth, and the most worrying, is hubris. Anyone watching the way in which President Putin was acclaimed at the Sochi Olympics will realise that he is playing to the national stage.
	It is a risky strategy. There is a strong chance that Ukraine will sink into chaos and fragmentation. But there is one chink of light. This is not the 1930s and echoes of Nazi imperialism or the post-war growth of the Soviet Union. Russia is now integrated into the global economy. Its businesses need western financial institutions and access to capital markets. If we are to make President Putin see sense, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, it is through financial and economic sanctions. The Foreign Secretary knows this, and I salute the way that he has persevered with diplomacy. I have to confess that I distance myself from those who described yesterday’s moves as pathetic. He is right to keep diplomatic channels open and to give the Russians a chance to de-escalate. No one wants a conflict with Russia, and we have to accept that they have very strong hand. As we fight international terrorism, as we seek a resolution in Syria, as we pursue a permanent nuclear deal with Iran, as we withdraw from Afghanistan, we need the lines of communication open, and the Russians know it.
	I suspect that round 3 of sanctions is inevitable and necessary, but I think we can also agree that sanctions are a double-edged sword. There are no cost-free sanctions. We have a huge stake in BP’s commitment to the Russian energy giant Rosneft. This is the company in which millions of British pensioners have invested their pensions. At the same time, we have to recognise—

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but does he agree that the UK is perhaps not so badly placed as others, in that only 1.6% of our exports go to Russia, and only 1.7% of our imports come from Russia, and we are dependent on Russian energy for only 1% of our natural gas requirement?

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this will entail major strategic rethinking, not so much by Britain, but by the rest of Europe.
	We have to recognise that this is a difficult time for Germany, which is hugely dependent on Russia for its energy supplies and exports. Angela Merkel is making the right noises, but her still fragile economic recovery can ill afford the volatility arising from sanction plans, and we must help Germany as much as we can. In a strange way, this may be moment of truth for Germany. In the post-war years, it has held back on major security and defence issues, but this saga is a wake-up call, not just for Germany but for all of Europe and its strategy. Russia will not hesitate to use its energy assets as a tool of foreign policy. It did it in Georgia, and we see it again in Ukraine today. Europe must now work towards reducing its dependency on Russia for its energy supplies, and building those pipelines passing to the south of Russia should be a priority.
	Secondly, Europe must reverse its downward trend in defence expenditure. Some NATO partners have virtually no defence capacity whatsoever. Crimea may not be of any direct strategic significance to us, but how we deal with this crisis has serious geopolitical implications. So let us speak in a language that Russia understands. We may not go to war over Ukraine, but the Baltic states, which gained independence from the Soviets with the fall of the Berlin wall, are a different case. They are members of the EU, of NATO and of the United Nations. Defence of these allies is our red line, and that needs to be marked out now, in indelible ink, before it is too late.

Angela Smith: I have not traditionally participated in foreign policy debates, but I am pleased to be able to do so today because I feel strongly about the situation facing Ukraine, as, indeed, it should be a huge concern to all those who believe in democracy and freedom—two words that we should remember in the context of this debate. Not only have we seen the military build-up in Crimea, we have also seen the increased Russian military presence in Kaliningrad, on the borders of Poland and Lithuania. On top of that, as Lord Ashdown pointed out yesterday, there is potential economic expansionism in the Balkans, in relation to Greater Serbia and Republika Srpska, in their ongoing communications with the Kremlin.
	All that suggests that we could be embarking on a new era of aggressive Russian expansionism. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) that that is from a position of weakness, but nevertheless it is aggressive Russian expansionism. It is in the context, over the past 60 years or so, of relatively peaceful co-existence, which has been the focus of the diplomatic relationship between the west and Russia. However, since the end of the cold war, we have seen the welcome unleashing of democratic forces in the old satellite states of the Soviet bloc. As those have gathered pace, that peaceful co-existence with Russia has become increasingly fraught and tense, as Russia finds it difficult to deal with the new relationships that are being forged in Europe.
	The key question for me is whether the culture, which in recent times has focused on embracing Russia, attempting to draw it ever closer into the economic fold of the EU
	and US, has begun to falter. Can it respond effectively to what is unfolding before our eyes? The suggestion so far is that the west is adopting an approach that is exactly in keeping with this culture, which has dominated western thinking in the post-war period and which is always aimed at bringing Russia to the negotiating table. I join the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) in saying that that position is very, very weak indeed. All the evidence on the table suggests that it will not work. We have a Russian President who does not care a jot what the west, the US or the EU think about his actions in Crimea. We are taking huge risks with European security and peace if we fail to acknowledge that fact.
	I also believe that we are taking significant risks because we are in danger of witnessing the west slipping by degrees from what looks like a sensible cautious response to the situation in Crimea and Ukraine, towards what would effectively be appeasement of an aggressor. This is where the parallels with the 1930s become relevant. That is what we have to guard against. The last thing the west needs to see is a situation in which we effectively acknowledge that the Russians have annexed Crimea and that we will do nothing significant or meaningful about it. I cannot think of a worse signal from the EU and the US than allowing that situation to materialise. I agree entirely with what everyone has said about the need for us to speak with one voice in ensuring that we do not allow Russia effectively to get away with it. We need to bear in mind too that events are likely to transpire that require the more robust response that some hon. Members would like to see; much more robust than anything we have allowed for so far. We are talking about economic sanctions and trade sanctions.
	I finish by saying to the Foreign Secretary that I was pleased to hear his much more robust attitude towards the situation this afternoon. When he goes to the European Council later this week, that determination to develop a much more robust response towards the situation in Crimea needs to be seen through and articulated as dramatically there as it has been here today.

James Wharton: We are dealing, as I suspect the Foreign Secretary is well aware, with somebody who is little more than an aggressive, weak and corrupt bully. The situation we see unfolding is ominous for the future of Europe and obviously dangerous for the future of Ukraine itself. Once influence was lost, once President Yanukovych left Ukraine, almost immediately we saw troops marching into Crimea, under the guise of being there on holiday or for unofficial reasons. It was claimed that the Russian army was not really there, but in the full glare of the international media it very clearly was and is.
	Upon that has now been built a referendum that can only be described as farcical. I have spent some time over the past year in this place debating referendums and how they should work. I know how complex it is to get something that accurately reflects the will of the people and unites those of different political opinions in accepting its result. There has been no effort whatsoever to hold a free and fair referendum in Crimea. There was 10 days’ notice, the question was changed three times and there was no definitive electoral roll, so we do not even know who was entitled to vote.
	As has been said, the referendum was held in the shadow of the guns of Russian troops. It has no legitimacy. Even the result—more than 95% voted to be part of Russia—undermines the entire process. Yet we now find that a weakened Russia, which is lashing out at its neighbours because of the weakness around them, and in order to retain a semblance of influence over them, has forced itself into a situation in which it is now dominant in Crimea.
	It is difficult to ascertain, even from the discussions that have taken place in this debate, what we will do about that and what the end position we want to achieve looks like. That worries me, because it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent, and not only for the situation before us, but for the future. There is no real chance that Mr Putin will decide all of a sudden that he wants to be incredibly reasonable, to respect proper democracy and to do things in a proper way. He cannot do that, because his image at home is built upon being the strong man who stands up to the caricature of the west that he paints for his domestic audience.
	Yet we sit here and debate sanctions. We talk about restricting travel for 21 people. We talk about no longer attending, or inviting Russia to attend, talks on a range of issues, or stopping the streamlining of visas. It is right that we consider all those measures, but they are obviously not enough. They will not change dramatically the direction of travel of a President who is determined to achieve something that we do not support, that should not happen and that is clearly illegal under international law.
	It is fascinating that even today we have seen Putin tell his Parliament that he wants to streamline the process for recognising Crimea as an independent state. There was talk earlier of Kosovo, which is still not recognised by Russia. I suspect that there is no chance of Russia recognising it in the medium term. That will not happen, even though it should. On Ukraine, however, where there has been an occupation, an illegal referendum and a disastrous series of events, we have heard a relatively weak response, up until now—I welcome the change in tone that I think we are hearing—from the western world. We see Russia rushing to recognise Crimea as an independent state. That is not a good situation to be in. We will not stop a bully behaving as such by displaying repeated acts of weakness and indecision towards him. We need to take firmer and stronger action, within the restrictions that we all recognise exist and the reality that some options are sadly off the table.
	Last week I was pleased to welcome Andriy Shevchenko to Parliament. He addressed the all-party group on Ukraine and told us how things were on the ground in Ukraine and how the experiences were affecting democracy in his country. Next week I hope that we will be visited by some more Ukrainian parliamentarians, including Vitali Klitschko, Maria Ionova and Petro Poroshenko, and Andriy Shevchenko will visit again. He is keen to bring that delegation here. I hope that colleagues will take the time to listen to him and demonstrate their support for what he is trying to achieve.
	We will not resolve the situation and get back on to the right path by showing weakness, indecision and a failure to act. We need to take strong measures and real action if we are to change President Putin’s mind.

Chris Bryant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on his speech—he just persuaded me against the idea of holding referendums very often.
	What more do we really need to know about Vladimir Putin? Even if we leave aside for a moment: his self-enrichment, which would put Victor Yanukovych, Imelda Marcos and Muammar Gaddafi to shame; the way in which misinformation, media manipulation and the repression of independent journalists are a standard part of the Putin package; the perversion of the criminal justice system in Russia, which means that more than 95% of all prosecutions lead to conviction, because they are determined by political persuasion, rather than justice; what more do we need to know?

Brooks Newmark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Chris Bryant: I do not know which point it is, but of course I will give way.

Brooks Newmark: He seems to have forgotten one important point. You can add targeted assassinations on British soil to your list.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not have a list, but I think that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does.

Chris Bryant: That was one of the other things I was leaving aside for a moment.
	We know how Putin reacts in a crisis. That is what really worries me. He always reacts with extreme force. In Beslan the state used such force to resolve a hostage crisis that 334 of the hostages, including 186 children, were killed. When terrorists from the Chechen republic took over a theatre in Moscow, the state’s intervention ended up killing not only all the terrorists, but 130 of the hostages.
	We also know about his territorial ambition. I can do no better than quote the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). During a debate on Georgia in the previous Parliament, he said:
	“Whatever one may think of Georgia’s actions on 7 August, Russia used grossly disproportionate force in response, and by subsequently recognising its supported regimes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia is attempting to redraw the map of Europe by force”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 686.]
	That is exactly what we are hearing again today. What more do we need to know?
	In Syria, Putin actively prevented an early resolution to the conflict and assisted Assad’s barbarous regime in repressing its people, and all for the strategic advantage that accrues to Russia, as has already been said, from its naval base in Tartus, which is vital for access to the Mediterranean. Now, after trying to bribe, bully and coerce the whole of Ukraine into aligning itself with Russia and against the European Union, he has effectively annexed part of an independent country.
	I am afraid that the international response, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, has thus far been pitiful
	and spineless. People have even trotted out in this Chamber the argument that most of the people in Crimea are Russian speaking and wanted to join Russia in the first place. Can Members not hear history running through the decades? In 1938 the British apologists for Hitler, combined with those who felt that Germany had been treated badly after the first world war, combined with the British mercantilists who wanted to do more business with Germany, and combined with the British cowards who wanted to avoid war at all costs, argued, using the same argument that has been advanced today, that the vast majority of the people in the Sudetenland were really German and wanted to be part of Germany.
	I have no desire for us to be at war, or for there to be a war of any kind. I opposed the proposed military intervention in Syria for the simple reason that I could not see how bombing that country would help. However, we should be ready for any eventuality. I was saddened that when I formally asked the Foreign Secretary on 30 November 2011 whether he would rule out the use of force in tackling Iran’s illegal nuclear ambitions, he refused to do so. Others agreed with him. I was told, including by Members on my side of the House, “Don’t be silly. You simply can’t rule things like that out.” Well, perhaps they were right, but I want to ask now why on earth we ruled out any military intervention, in whatever set of circumstances and at whatever stage, from the very beginning of Putin’s advances into Ukraine. I am not arguing for war; I am simply asking why we do one thing for Iran but say exactly the opposite when dealing with Russia.
	I think that the EU has shown little honour in this. The Ukrainian Government have behaved with extraordinary and admirable restraint.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the last but one Foreign Office questions, I asked the Foreign Secretary what the fact that NATO has a co-operation agreement with Ukraine means, and he gave the impression that I was asking for war. I was not asking for war; I just wanted to put the military options on the table.

Chris Bryant: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I think he also agrees with the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who spoke earlier.
	There has been little honour in the way that Britain, France and the United States, having signed up to the Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, now make lots of great speeches but introduce the measliest level of sanctions and targeted interventions against Russian individuals.
	The real problem is that we all know where this might all too easily be leading: to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Belarus. What will we say then; what will we do then? We have done far too little to safeguard European energy supply over the years. We have surrendered our military capacity to intervene. We have let commercial interests alone determine our foreign policy. We have failed to tackle deep Russian corruption within the EU, especially in Cyprus. It is not so much that we have let Russia pick us off country by country but that we in the European Union, country by country, have gone begging to Russia to try to do more business with it and left aside too many other issues.
	There are things that we could and should be doing. We should target a much longer list of Russian officials. The Foreign Secretary referred, I think, to Leonid Slutsky. He should not be a member of the socialist group in the Council of Europe, and nor, for that matter, should his party. I am delighted that the Conservative party has now taken the action that it has, for which I had been arguing for some time. I cannot see for the life of me why the Government still use their slightly weaselly language about the potential of a Magnitsky list. It has been implemented by the United States of America, the European Union has called for it, and the Council of Europe is calling for it, and we should go down that route.
	A Russian friend of mine says that Putin is not yet mad. That may be true, but what will our surrendering and our appeasement do for his sanity?

Gerald Howarth: The Foreign Secretary said that this is the most serious crisis of this century. I think it is probably the most serious crisis since the fall of the Berlin wall.
	We should not be surprised by what has happened in Crimea. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said, we have seen it all before. We have seen it in Georgia, where Putin adopted exactly the same techniques as he has now used in Crimea—namely, issuing Russian passports, fomenting revolt among local anti-Russian sentiment so that pro-Russian sentiment can be expressed, and then going in on the pretext of saving his compatriots. This should not have come as a surprise to us, and he is clearly on a roll. The question is what we do now to prevent him from pursuing aggressive Russian expansionism, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) rightly described it. I agree with every single word she said, and I hope that such sentiments will get wider currency outside the House.
	I agree with all those who believe that the response from the west has been feeble if not worse. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said himself that the credibility of the international order is at stake. The whole security of Europe, wider Europe and potentially elsewhere is at stake if this matter is not resolved. There is a feeling that the European leaders, in particular, are subject to some form of paralysis. They have been responding to events, which are overtaking them. They are behind the drag curve, and we need to take more vigorous action.

Laura Sandys: Will my hon. Friend speculate on what Putin thinks about our response so far, and on whether he is frightened by what might happen to him?

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I should think that Putin is laughing all the way to the bank. The bank may not be in London, but he will be laughing all the way to a bank. This is the whole point. He might be weak, and we have seen other weak leaders around the world, not least in Argentina, lashing out. I have some sympathy with the view that he is, as it were, lashing out, but the question is whether we continue to let him lash out or have to draw the line.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to the Budapest agreement. We need to understand the significance of ignoring Russia’s flagrant breach of this agreement, to which it, the United Kingdom and the United States of America were signatories. The other European countries were not signatories, but we have a special position and the United States has a special position. This is not a guarantee of Ukraine’s borders, but it is a statement that the Russians
	“respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”.
	Those borders have been infringed. The question arises of how we can possibly trust Russia if it is prepared so flagrantly to breach an agreement to which it signed up only 20 years ago.
	Then the question is: where next? I have a British friend in eastern Ukraine who has been briefing me on what has been going there, and it is perfectly clear that Putin has won the propaganda war. He is telling all his people in Russia that Ukraine is run by a bunch of fascists and it is his duty to go and protect the Russian-speaking people there. The truth is, as my friend found out when he went on to the streets of Donetsk and listened to people’s accents, that these were not pro-Russian Ukrainians but pro-Russian Russians who had been bussed in. He said, “The accents I heard were from St Petersburg, not Donetsk.” Putin has been quite flagrantly provoking the Ukrainians. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it is a great tribute to the Ukrainians that they have not risen to that provocation.

Richard Ottaway: On the point about playing to the gallery in Russia, is my hon. Friend aware that Putin has gone up by 10% in the opinion polls since this incident started?

Gerald Howarth: I am sure he has. Twenty years ago, I worked for the Sukhoi Design Bureau for a year, and Russians made it apparent to me that there is a strong sense of Russian nationalism and they did not want their country to be raped. Putin is clearly playing to that. He is a man who has photographs of himself stripped to the waist, bearing a gun, standing over a shot bear, and so on—a man who plants a Russian flag on the floor of the Arctic ocean. One has to ask oneself, “What sort of a guy is this?”
	Let us ask what is next. It is perfectly clear from what my friend in eastern Ukraine is saying that Russia is on a roll. The Russians will move fast, and eastern Ukraine is at risk, because 34% of Ukraine’s economy is in the east. Crimea has no direct land link to Russia; it runs only through Ukraine. So where will the Russians go next? They will annex that land to give them direct access into Crimea. Where might Putin then go? To Odessa. That is why I said to the Defence Secretary yesterday that we need to take more robust action. If he manages to get to Odessa, Ukraine will become landlocked because it will have no access to the Black sea and no port.
	These are very serious stakes. I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether you saw the BBC television series, “37 Days”, but it is chilling how the kinds of conversations heard there are being reflected in what we are discussing today. I have no wish to provoke military intervention and no wish to harm the Russian people, but I do believe that the security of Europe is at risk if we do not
	take action. We need to understand the risks of inaction. Turkey has talked about closing the Bosphorus to Russia because of its treatment of the Muslim Tatars in Crimea. The Russians have been exercising repeatedly on Ukraine’s borders, and it is time for NATO to act and put together some exercises. In my view—I say this to the Foreign Secretary—NATO should have a maritime exercise in the Black sea to serve notice on the Russians, “You do not go near Odessa.”

Ian Austin: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is completely right to call for much tougher action, because this is the first time since the end of the second world war that part of a sovereign European country has been annexed by another nation. He is also right to draw attention to the Budapest memorandum, because when we and the Americans signed it in 1994, we gave assurances to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and security.
	The Prime Minister has said that Russia has committed a
	“flagrant breach of international law”,
	that what has happened is “unacceptable”, and that this is
	“the most serious crisis in Europe this century.”
	However, the European response, as the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), said earlier, has been absolutely pitiful. Limited measures on visas and assets have been announced for just 22 people, not a single one of whom is a member of Putin’s inner circle. European leaders might have wanted to send a signal without escalating the situation, but Putin’s response, which was to legitimise the outcome of the ludicrous and illegal referendum held over the weekend, was contemptuous.
	Not content with moving Crimea to Russian time, Putin clearly wants to turn the clocks back completely to before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin—a former KGB colonel who regards the collapse of the iron curtain as a huge mistake—has made no secret of his belief that Russia should control former Soviet republics.
	We have to ask ourselves what has actually changed for Putin, given that, to all intents and purposes, he is a brutal, cold war and Soviet-style dictator, terrorising his opponents at home, murdering them abroad, invading other countries and supporting terrorists such as Assad in conflicts elsewhere.
	The only thing that does appear to have changed is that, as we saw with Syria, the west has become utterly impotent, weaker than ever before and unable—or unwilling—to stand up for its values, preferring instead to allow Russian oligarchs to use often ill-gotten gains to buy up huge swathes of London, our businesses, our football clubs and even our newspapers.
	We should be pressing much more urgently for much more robust sanctions, such as further asset freezes and visa denials to members of the Duma who voted in favour of providing military support to Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia’s illegal invasion and continued occupation of Ukrainian sovereign territory.
	We should seize the foreign currency assets of the Russian Government, Russia’s central bank and Russian state-owned companies. It is estimated that two thirds of the $56 billion moved out of Russia in 2012 were the proceeds of crimes, bribes to state officials and tax fraud. Let us make Putin’s elite cronies and financial backers choose between supporting his dictatorship at home and invasions abroad on the one hand and their wealth on the other. We should change the locks on their fancy apartments in Kensington, board up the mansions they have bought in the home counties, and empty their bank accounts to show them that the west will not tolerate the sort of brutality and corruption that passes for government and business in Putin’s Russia.
	We should kick Russia out of the G8—I think that is absolutely clear. The summit due to be held in Sochi in June should be cancelled and Russia should be suspended from the Council of Europe. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s earlier statement about military exports, but Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organisation should be suspended and existing trade negotiations cancelled.
	Putin will obviously use western dependence on Russia’s state-owned and state-controlled energy companies to try to ward off tougher measures, so we must decrease that dependence in the long term and we should immediately explore how western energy imports can be diversified away from Russia.
	The truth is that the west needs to decide which is more important: our values and commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law, or the dubious benefits of the west’s commercial relationships with Russia.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and am encouraged that every speaker in this debate has sent a strong message. I commend in particular the powerful speech by the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
	I have chaired the all-party British-Ukraine group for the past four years. I was last in Ukraine six months ago—in Yalta in Crimea—attending the European strategy conference, at which representatives of all the parties in the Ukrainian Parliament, with the single exception of the Communist party, made clear their absolute commitment to pursuing the path towards closer European association through the association agreement and the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement. However, even then the warning signs were there.
	If we read President Putin’s speeches about Eurasian economic union over the past couple of years, we will see that his clear ambition is not just free trade but building a political union—something that is quite familiar to us in the west in terms of discussing economic unions, but his is a much more sinister ambition.
	A few weeks before the conference in Yalta, I was in Armenia. The Armenians had also said that they wanted closer association, but then came under huge pressure from Russia, including threats to their security and economics. As a result, the Armenians announced that they were no longer pursuing European integration, but instead would join the Eurasian customs union.
	Similarly, Ukraine was put under massive pressure and the result was that it, too, changed course. What President Putin did not expect was the extraordinary
	protests that took place across Ukraine afterwards, particularly in Maidan. In debating Russia’s actions, we must not forget the crimes committed in Maidan and the many heroes who died in Ukraine displaying immense courage. They still need justice.
	I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who is sitting on the Front Bench, that I have received an appeal from the Ukrainian Medical Association of the United Kingdom regarding the nearly 400 people who still require urgent medical treatment as a result of the suffering they experienced in Maidan. If Britain could provide specialist treatment to some of them, as other countries are doing, that would be another way to show our commitment to helping the people of Ukraine.
	It is the Russian intervention that we are rightly focusing on this afternoon. The Foreign Secretary made it very clear that there is no justification in international law for the actions of the Russians. They are in breach of all agreements, but in particular they are in breach of the Budapest memorandum. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made the powerful point that the Budapest memorandum was signed because the Ukrainians gave up a nuclear arsenal equivalent to that of France, America and China combined in return for guarantees. The fact that that can just be swept away is a very dangerous message for other countries that we might hope are also now amenable to the idea of giving up their nuclear weapons. It is essential that we protect the Ukrainian interest and defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.
	There is a real danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) spelled out, that this might not be the end. The people of eastern Ukraine are being subjected to a constant diet of Russian propaganda on television about how the country has been taken over by Nazis and fascists and that they are at risk. The BBC World Service correspondent told us that his own grandfather, who is a resident of Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine, had said to him that he did not dare leave his house because he was so terrified that he would get murdered by these fascists who had taken over the country. The correspondent said, “That’s completely untrue. There is no evidence of that at all. Why do you think that?” He said, “Because that is what I am hearing on the television every single day.”
	The response so far has not been strong enough. I welcome the measures announced, but the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee is absolutely right that we need to do more. Economic and trade sanctions are probably the most powerful things. One of the most powerful messages delivered to President Putin that I have heard about is that from the chief executive of BlackRock, who apparently rang him and said, “Do you realise there will be no further investment by western countries into Russia if you continue down this course?”
	We have considerable economic leverage over Russia and we must use it. It may be that there will be a small cost attached to it and the City of London might lose some trade and some companies might lose some contracts, but, frankly, that is a small price to pay compared with the price we potentially face paying if we do not send a very clear message that this is unacceptable and that we will stand up against it.

Helen Goodman: It is a great privilege to speak in this important debate about the very serious situation in Crimea and Ukraine.
	The whole House is agreed that the events of the past two weeks have gone in completely the wrong direction and that what we want to see is the peaceful democratic development of Ukraine. We all know that conflict will set that back. If this crisis is not to escalate, we need to concentrate on bringing down the temperature, but securing Russian participation in meaningful talks about the future will be difficult.
	It is clear that a vote with transparent ballot boxes and no international monitors does not reach the required standard for a free choice for Crimean people. When he winds up the debate, will the Leader of the House explain whether we are going to stick with our position on the overriding importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, or are we going to discuss what we believe would be a free and fair plebiscite?
	As the Foreign Secretary has said, Ukraine should not have to choose between Russia and the EU. It is quite clear that the Russians feel they have a great deal at stake. Their major—possibly the major—concern is the warm-water location of the Black sea fleet. Will the Leader of the House explain how it could be maintained were Ukraine to join NATO?

Bob Stewart: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)? My real worry is that the Crimean peninsula is isolated and that the Russians require land access to it, which means coming through eastern Ukraine.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman, whose military expertise goes far beyond mine, makes a very useful point.
	As we have previously discussed in the House, we need to look at the behaviour of the new Government in Kiev. The under-representation of Russian speakers from the east and the appointment of two oligarchs as governors of eastern regions does not look inclusive.
	When I was in Ukraine a couple of years ago, it was absolutely clear that weak institutional arrangements had been further sapped by a weak political culture and an undeveloped civil society. Virtually every senior politician was supported by an oligarch—unless they had become one themselves—and it was very unclear who controlled whom.
	I was therefore extremely concerned to receive e-mails from human rights activists in Ukraine who claimed that British parliamentarians had received money from Dmitry Firtash, a major Ukrainian oligarch. He owns 45% of the Ukrainian gas transit company, which controls Gazprom’s supplies through Ukraine to Europe, and he also owns a major chemical industry in the country. Mr Firtash is estimated to be worth between $600 million and $5 billion. He has been linked to President Yanukovych and even to President Putin.
	When I raised the possibility of conflicts of interest with the Foreign Secretary on 4 March, he described my question as “utterly baseless” and “ridiculous in the extreme”. Since then, in an episode described by one analyst to the Financial Times as “seismic”, Mr Firtash has been arrested in Vienna by the Austrian organised crime unit, following a seven-year investigation by the FBI.
	We have also learned that Mr Firtash had a meeting at the Foreign Office on 24 February. I hope that the Leader of the House, who will wind up the debate, can tell us whom Mr Firtash met, what was discussed and whether the issue of sanctions or asset freezes was on the agenda? On the same day, the Foreign Secretary said in the House that he wanted to see an “end to pervasive corruption” in Ukraine. We all agree with that, but I notice that Mr Firtash is not at the moment on the sanctions list issued by the EU.
	Even the most cursory glance through the Electoral Commission website reveals that in recent years the Conservative party, in various guises, has received nearly £200,000 from associates of Mr Firtash. The Harlow Conservative party has received £40,000 from Mr Shetler-Jones, who was the chief executive officer of Mr Firtash’s holding company, Group DF. Mr Shetler-Jones has given money in his own name and via a company called Scythian, which he owns and of which he is a director.
	Earlier in the Parliament, Baroness Neville-Jones was refused the post of National Security Adviser because of her links to Ukrainian oligarchs. She, too, has received money from Mr Shetler-Jones. During the previous Parliament, the Electoral Commission looked into whether Scythian was an active company, but it has not published its findings. It is apparently a consultancy that advises on energy matters, but it is not clear who its clients are.
	That is not only a concern in this country but a serious problem from the perspective of Ukraine. Ukraine has lost the equivalent of almost half its annual GDP to outflows into offshore accounts during the past three years. The all-party group on anti-corruption says that a proportion of those funds have been laundered through the UK, that this is a clear example of the damaging role UK companies and individuals play in aiding foreign corrupt officials, and that assets should be identified, frozen and returned without delay. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is working on Ukrainian asset recovery, and I hope that the Government will take a no-holds-barred approach.

Ben Wallace: I do not need to repeat the profiling of President Putin that, like the problems, was completely and comprehensively set out by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but the real challenge at the heart of the issue is how to respond. We could of course do lots of huffing and puffing. There has been plenty of that during the past few years, which is one reason why Mr Putin has felt that he can carry on with impunity.
	The most traditional route is that of sanctions. Although I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I am afraid that I am slightly cynical about whether we will in the end get to a stage at which sanctions are robust enough to make a difference. The view at large is that sanctions are somehow pain-free, being effective at only one end, but major sanctions usually end up also affecting the people who put them in place. It will take real courage on behalf of the Germans, for example, to push for something in an area such as gas.
	There is also the military way to respond. The Foreign Secretary, like many other countries, has been absolutely adamant that a military response is not on the table. I recognise that it is not a political solution or one that would help the situation, but we should not entirely rule out some form of military assistance or aid to the Ukrainian forces, who are equipped with obsolete and rather poor equipment. They are standing guard against the Russian bear almost as a Dad’s Army force at the moment. Russia never hesitates to help Syria with the latest weapons systems when trying to undermine the United Nations or, indeed, the international community. At the very least, expertise in military hospitals should be given to help people who are already suffering.

Bob Stewart: I think that we should reinforce the troops in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, because they are on the front line.

Ben Wallace: I think that the real thing we must deal with here and now is Ukraine. We must make sure that Ukrainian people have the ability to defend themselves should the Russians overstep the mark.
	The long-term solution is of course through economics. It is important to resolve the EU-US free trade treaty to make Mr Putin feel what isolation is like, and to help Europe come to terms with its apparent energy dependency on Russia, which only makes it more and more vulnerable to a man who has proved time and again that he uses energy as a weapon.
	There does not always have to be a hot war or a high -stakes conflict for us to face each other down. How quickly we rushed to forget the lessons of the cold war and sought to retire members of the intelligence agencies who were put out to grass when it ended in 1990-91. Let us remember that intelligence agencies around the world helped to change the behaviour of the Soviet Union and to make it collapse from within. Not a month now goes by without people denigrating our intelligence community —most recently thanks to Mr Snowden, who is now enjoying the hospitality of Mr Putin, and there is an irony in that—but they largely understand the Russian bear, know what makes Mr Putin vulnerable and know how to turn up the heat.
	Let us remember that the source of Mr Putin’s power is the secret state, in which he can imprison people without trial, and in which he can persecute homosexuals and non-governmental organisations in the Russian state. He gets his power from manipulation, intimidation and corruption, but that is where he is vulnerable. If we can deter and deny him the ability to use that state within Russia and further afield, we can weaken him, and in doing so we can certainly deter him in future.
	Let us unleash our intelligence services and capability. Let us no longer be afraid to hide them and run away from the accusations of Snowden. Let us make life a little more uncomfortable for Mr Putin. Let him feel what it is like on the other end of his intimidation in the secret state. Let us not put him in a cold war, but let him feel the cold winds of isolation that we can bring about if we isolate him economically, isolate him militarily and isolate him in his ability to break international law around the world. One cannot be a major player, riding bareback on a horse, if one is isolated from the international stage.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that, with immediate effect, I have to reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to four minutes.

William McCrea: I welcome this timely debate. I think everyone acknowledges the seriousness of the situation in Ukraine and the tensions that have followed Russia’s desire to annex Crimea from the rest of Ukraine. President Putin has swiftly signed a decree to recognise Crimea as a sovereign state—a move that paves the way for Crimea to join the Russian Federation.
	I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in this matter. Sadly, we continue to witness the escalation of the crisis and defiance from the Russian President. It is clear that the US, the EU and the new Ukrainian Government do not recognise the referendum. The acting President of Ukraine has vowed:
	“We are ready for negotiations, but we will never resign ourselves to the annexation of our land”.
	The military threat to Ukraine is real and there is no legitimacy in the action that has been taken by Russia. What we have seen is the bully-boy tactics of someone who feels that he can walk over international law and hold the rest of the world to ransom. The referendum was held at a time when armed soldiers from Russia had invaded another sovereign, independent country. There was 10 days’ notice of the referendum, which is a mockery of the democratic process. There is no escaping the fact that Putin’s action was a blatant violation of territorial sovereignty. No one can ignore that. The referendum might satisfy Russia and its pro-Russian friends in Crimea, but no democratic country can take the referendum seriously.
	What should we do in response? Sadly, over the years, the west has not had the courage to stand up to Russian aggression, in the hope that Putin would somehow decide to conduct himself in accordance with international norms. What will stop Russia from using its military muscle in other neighbouring countries? The decision by the EU and the US to impose sanctions on selected Russian and Ukrainian officials is but a limited response to Russian aggression. Isolating her is one thing; confronting her is something else. How can we make Russia respect international law and ensure that further incursions by Russian troops into Ukraine or other neighbouring countries do not happen?
	Dialogue and engagement have been spoken about today. Dialogue and engagement have taken place with Russia over many years, but they have failed to stop Russian aggression. How can we ensure that we will succeed in our dialogue and engagement now? I believe that we need to encourage the Foreign Secretary to encourage his international partners to agree to the immediate suspension of Russia’s membership of the G8. We need the imposition of financial sanctions and the freezing of assets. In other words, we must make Russia feel the impact and pain of its actions. Words of condemnation are not enough. Actions will speak louder than words. We must demonstrate resolve and prove
	that aggression will not succeed. We hope for a diplomatic solution, but we must prepare for what will happen if diplomacy fails.
	I believe that Putin is putting it up to the west. We are in danger of looking weak, as he presents himself as the strong man of Europe.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to put it back up to Russia, we must be able to defend what we say with equally strong actions? Therefore, what we put back up must be sustainable and accurate.

William McCrea: I want to conclude, because I realise the restriction on time, but I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. There is no use putting it back up to Putin if we do not carry through our actions. Our actions will speak louder than our words. We must remember that what has happened in the past has not made Putin back down. We must therefore think through our actions carefully. We must work with our international partners to ensure that our plan will succeed on behalf of Ukrainian citizens and other neighbouring countries that are threatened by Russia.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). This has been a thoroughly constructive debate and there has been a great deal of unanimity across the House about the danger that the situation presents.
	The parallels between what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939 and what Putin and the Soviet Federation are doing today are prescient. In 1939, Hitler walked into Czechoslovakia on the pretence of protecting German speakers. He manipulated the media, just as Putin is doing today by shutting off some of the Ukrainian media, manipulating the Russian media in east Ukraine and pretending that Russian citizens have something to fear from the transitional Government. After all, they are only a transitional Government. With proper negotiations, there could have been a democratically elected Government for whom every part of Ukraine had an opportunity to vote.
	We have to be very clear to Putin, who is a bully and a really tough man, that the west will not just stand by and watch him annex the weak parts of the former Soviet Union. I pointed out in an intervention that the Speaker of the Transnistrian Parliament in Moldova has written to the Speaker of the Duma today to say that Transnistria should become part of the Russian Federation. That was no doubt orchestrated by Russia. Russia has done other bits of stirring in Moldova. The Gagauz community in the south-west of Moldova is nothing to do with Russia and is a Christian enclave, but it has been stirred up to oppose the good non-Russian Government in Moldova. I do not think that we should stand by if President Putin makes further moves—and if he makes further moves into east Ukraine, the Ukrainians will fight. There will therefore be a very serious situation if he goes much further.
	The west must show clear resolve, as a number of speakers have said, not least my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
	We need to be absolutely united in our economic voice. That will mean many nations making economic sacrifices. If we had taken tough measures in the mid-1930s, despite the economic downturn, the second world war, and its initiation, in particular, might have been very different.
	I urge the Foreign Secretary and his team to do all they can to show leadership in Europe and to ensure that Europe is heard to be speaking with one voice. This is not the time to be soft-hearted and to oppose economic sanctions, visa bans and so on. We must speak with one voice and we must be prepared to take economic sanctions. We must all act in concert—Europe, America and the other front-line states that have influence in this matter, such as Turkey. We must all take part in one diplomatic initiative, because if we fail to make our clear voice heard by Putin now, goodness knows where we might end up.

Jonathan Djanogly: The solidarity and unity in this debate have been heartening.
	Too many people in this country and among our allies have been wandering aimlessly towards the teeth of the Russian bear, either as direct economic appeasers or because they do not want to think about nasty things going on in the extremities of our continent. However, the invasion of sovereign territory and the deprivation of human rights, including through the closing down of media, mob rule, bullying and the ignoring of minority concerns, are happening in Europe. We in the west need to wake up from our post-cold war dream of so-called peace dividends, our tiredness of conflict, our yearning for an end to austerity and other such pleasant thoughts, and face up to the new reality.
	The reality of Putin’s Russia is not a pretty one. It is a regime that has no respect for international rules and conventions. It is a regime that has no morality in the western sense and that feeds on a diet of brute political strength and money—much of it stolen, in one way or another, from its own people. We apply our morality to Russian intransigence, and Putin and his henchmen laugh at us and just see weakness. They see a split Europe that is afraid to rock the economic boat and a US President who will do anything he can to avoid foreign policy distractions.
	In Russia itself, human rights are little more than an afterthought. I hear now that extreme web and blog restrictions are being put in place. History has shown time and again that brutal dictators cannot be appeased. I recently spoke to a former Latvian Minister, and I hear from other countries surrounding Russia of their fear of what might happen as they count the numbers of ethnic Russians within their own borders.
	I recently reread Winston Churchill’s speech in this place after the Munich conference, on 5 October 1938, and I commend it to hon. Members. The similarities between Crimea and the Sudetenland—a brutal power marching into a neighbour on the pretence of saving its own ethnic peoples—are chilling. At that time, Churchill remarked:
	“I have always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor,
	coupled with a sincere effort to redress grievances.”—[ Official Report , 5 October 1938; Vol. 339, c. 362.]
	How apposite are those words now, and how well we would do to heed them.
	The difference then was in the remedy. Churchill called for immediate rearmament, and although NATO will clearly need to reassure its ex-eastern bloc members of our article 5 obligations, it is not war that we now face immediately, although it would be remiss of the Government not to review alternatives, including reactive military ones. The current situation is more about affecting Russia where it cares most, and that is money. Yes, Putin has reignited Russian nationalism, but his political base, and that of his kleptocratic regime, is all governed by money, and mainly oil money at that. Thieves need access to their ill-gotten gains, and in the case of Russia, that means properties in Chelsea and the south of France, children in English schools, boats in the Med and wives in Bond street and rue Saint-Honoré. My feeling is that the kleptocracy will implode quicker if we stop that access than if we send in 50 divisions or move new nuclear weapons to the Polish border.
	Yesterday’s EU travel ban and asset freeze on 21 officials from Russia and Ukraine is a weak and half-hearted negation of responsibility by the EU of which we should be ashamed. We should head the list of those sanctioned with Putin and his acolytes and work downwards to include all Russians. Even if the intention is to ratchet up sanctions, we should have been clearer about the implications of Russia annexing Crimea. We should remove Russia from the G8 and the Council of Europe. If it wants to behave as a 19th-century bully, why should it be allowed to G8 meetings? Tough sanctions should be put in place, along the lines of those on Iran, and Russian banks should be excluded from our financial system. Some seem to be saying that we have too much to lose if Russia retaliates. That is nonsense; I disagree.

Laura Sandys: It is a great privilege to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who made a passionate case for a robust response.
	We must realise that for Putin, the cold war has not ended. We have not come to a new resolution or settlement about borders; instead, he is passionately trying to readjust the borders and then fight again to ensure that Russia becomes what he sees as dominant right across eastern Europe and into the Caucasus and central Asia.
	I have worked in Georgia and felt the deep, dark shadow of Russia over everything that is done in politics and economics. Sometimes it makes the citizens of Georgia feel that they have a short leasehold rather than a freehold over their own borders. On that basis, Putin has already succeeded in what is probably his first objective, which is about not just Crimea but the total shake-up of identity in the region. He has polarised Russian nationals across the former Soviet Union, destabilising the Caucasus, the Baltics and now the Balkans, and he has won an important battle—removing the confidence of citizens there in their current borders.
	It is important, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, that we are robust on political and
	economic sanctions. However, we must also consider offering carrots. Where is our Marshall plan for Ukraine, to kick-start and modernise its economy and say that a modern, non-Russian-dominated Ukraine is a positive and important place to be? Where is our support for Russian speakers and Russian nationals who do not live in Russia? They are free Russians, and we should celebrate them. We should ensure that being a free Russian is seen as something of great value, and that they can counter the problems of Russians whose internet is being taken over, whose communications are being closed down and whose newspapers are being dominated by central Politburo-type mechanisms. We have to value the things that Russians outside the border have.
	There is another economic element of the matter that we should examine, which is Cyprus. It is the centre of second-tier Russian investment, beyond those who have penthouses in London. The banking structure and real estate in Cyprus are greatly dominated by Russian investment. If we and the Cypriots can bear down on Russia with effective sanctions, ensuring that investments and current deposits are frozen, we will be in a position to shake Putin where it matters, through the people around him. They are the people with the money, who feel threatened by the destabilisation that the current President of Russia is creating not just for Russia but for the rest of us in Europe.

Penny Mordaunt: I apologise to the House for not having been present for the whole debate—I was speaking in Westminster Hall—and as a consequence, I shall be brief.
	The more complex a situation, the clearer we should be about what is in our national interest. The sovereignty of states must be respected and the right to self-determination must be upheld in Ukraine, as it must in Moldova, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere. Ukraine must continue to develop to become a stable democracy, free from corruption, and its economy must develop too. NATO members must have confidence that the alliance will protect their sovereignty and interests, and international law must be upheld. It is directly in the UK’s national interests that those things are so, so what actions and inactions follow from those objectives?
	First, we must support Ukraine economically and politically and allow its civic development. Secondly, Ukraine must lead the response to developments in Crimea. Thirdly, we must not recognise the result of the referendum as legitimate. Whatever the outcome of a further ballot, should it happen, Putin and Russia must face the repercussions of their actions. No one disputes that Russia has an interest in the future of the Crimean peninsula, but in response to events in Kiev and Crimea, Putin pursued not legal diplomacy but illegal aggression. It was only because of Ukraine’s restraint and the cool-headedness of her troops that we did not have bloodshed.
	Sanctions must be proportionate to Russia’s actions and must be escalated if she continues to pursue the same policy, and we must lend our support to the Ukrainian Government if they wish to prevent Russia gaining a deep hold on Crimea through banking, technology, political and civil structures and the military. We must also ensure that the situation in Crimea is properly observed and reported on.
	I am sure that many Members who have spoken in the debate have touched on the failure of British and EU foreign policy to the prevent the current situation arising, and perhaps even suggested that it has exacerbated it. I might agree with some of those sentiments, but today I will constrain myself to saying that we must learn from the situation. We must work with the EU, the US and others to present Russia with compelling reasons to stop the hostilities. However, a lack of consensus should not prevent the United Kingdom defending her interests vigorously. Russia should be in no doubt that by taking the steps she has in the past few weeks, she has damaged her interests in the extreme, and she should know that we will defend our own.
	The situation will not be easily or swiftly resolved, but Britain should commit to the process for the long term. We may have been slow getting out of the blocks, or perhaps we were not even at the starting line when the gun was fired, but we must catch up. The message from the House today must be that we are determined to do so.

Dominic Raab: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt).
	Two years ago this month, the House called for a UK Magnitsky law, inspired by dissident Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured to death and posthumously prosecuted on orders from the Kremlin for disclosing the biggest tax fraud in Russian history.
	The Magnitsky law is relevant today because it would create a presumption of near automatic UK visa bans and asset freezes for individuals where there is concrete evidence that they had a role in torture or other gross human rights abuses. It should apply not just to Russia but more generally, and it could be used to impose sanctions on those involved in other egregious violations of international law, such as the unlawful use of force that Russia is bullying Ukraine with.
	Why should we care about the violation of such basic rules of international life hundreds of miles away? Do we want to become a safe haven for international outlaws—the mafia bosses, the despots and their fixers? Do we want London to be the safety deposit box for their dirty money? The answer from this House must be no. We should ban those crooks and bullies as a matter of course, and prevent them siphoning their illicit gains through London or British companies.
	The Government already have power to impose visa bans and asset freezes, but that power is underused and, frankly, lacks transparency. If someone is deported or extradited from this country, there is a major public debate and huge transparency, yet there is a veil of secrecy over visa bans and the decision-making process concerning them. We still do not know whether any of those linked to the Magnitsky case had been to Britain either around that time or have been since. Likewise, the Serious Fraud Office and HMRC were passed evidence about the criminal money from the Magnitsky cases and links to Britain, but they did precious little.
	The links between the Magnitsky case and the current crisis in Ukraine are palpable. There is evidence that three companies cited in documents recovered from Yanukovych’s presidential palace are registered in the
	UK: Navimax Ventures, Roadfield Capital LLP, and Fineroad Business LLP are holding some of those assets, and it is striking that all three share the same UK address, offshore shell companies, and directors as companies linked to the Magnitsky case. Further reports suggest that Yanukovych used British shell companies to finance the construction of various properties, including the presidential palace, which is part-owned by a UK-registered firm named Blythe (Europe) Ltd. Many of those siphoning their money through Britain are also directly connected to Putin himself, as others have said.
	The wider point is that after Iraq and Afghanistan, this country has, in the words of US President John Quincy Adams, grown wary of going abroad
	“in search of monsters to destroy”.
	The public’s appetite for serving as the world’s policeman is unlikely to return, yet from the Arab spring, through Putin’s Russia to China, we are likely to face more and more cases of serious violations of international law, where the international response is divided, where there is no domestic appetite for military action, and where wholesale economic sanctions may be too blunt a tool. We need better tools for targeted financial sanctions that apply a direct cost to the worst violations of the cardinal rules of international law, whether torture in the Magnitsky case or military aggression in Crimea. The Magnitsky model offers that accountability, a way to deter those who bankroll the likes of Putin, and a pressure point to hit despots where it hurts.
	We may not be the world’s policeman, but that does not mean we should let the henchmen of despots or dictators waltz into this country, buy up property, send their kids to school here and enjoy a very British veneer of respectability, as if their outrages back home had never happened.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) quoted John Quincy Adams who famously warned against his country going out seeking “monsters to destroy”.
	I declare an interest: I have been interested in Russian culture and history ever since my Russian Orthodox wedding to my Russian Orthodox wife. I have visited Kiev, and I want to explain to the House how important Ukraine is to the Russian people. In our island, secure as we are, we sometimes do not understand the importance of history and of fear, and of the great fear of the Russian people. I am neither pro-Russian nor pro-Ukrainian, because I am also sympathetic to Ukrainians living in western Ukraine who are Catholic Uniates, and I understand the divisions of that country.
	History is everything. My wife’s grandmother escaped through Crimea in 1918, and her first husband was dragged out of the woods and shot by Bolsheviks, simply because of his name and title. The Russian people—this is seared into their soul—went through the most appalling suffering during the second world war, not least in Crimea. When one goes to Kiev, as I have done, and walks around the Russian Orthodox cathedrals, one understands the Kievan Rus’, which was founded 1,000 years ago. Ukraine is not just some settlement. I am not apologising or being an apologist for Putin or what he has done; I am
	just trying to explain to the House how importantly Russians feel about the future of Ukraine, and how sensitive we must be to their sensibilities. That particularly applies to Crimea, which has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great, and Russian speakers are the dominant part of the population. I know that the Tatars have been treated appallingly, but—again, the House will not like what I say—many Russians believe that some elements of the Tatar population collaborated with what they call the fascist invaders.

Angela Smith: We must remember that Finland, too, was occupied by Russia for a considerable period. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Russians have an affinity with Finland that perhaps gives Russia the right to think about what to do in a place like Finland? It still holds some Finnish territory.

Edward Leigh: No, of course I do not. Finland was also occupied by Sweden, but there is no time to debate that. Ukraine is a completely different ball game to Russians than Poland. My point is that Ukraine is an extraordinarily divided country. This is not a simple, liberal argument about a long-standing independent united country and a foreign aggressor. Western Ukraine is fiercely anti-Russian. As I said, it is Catholic Uniate, its capital city is Lviv, and formerly it was largely inhabited not by Ukrainians but 80% by Poles who were forcibly removed by Stalin. Before that it was past of the Austro-Hungarian empire and was called Lemberg. The whole of western Ukraine is therefore passionately opposed to Russia—quite understandably—and wants to break free.
	The eastern part of the country around Donetsk and Crimea is a completely different state of affairs. We must be aware that however many speeches we give, and however many sanctions we impose, this is not just about a tyrant—Putin—invading a foreign country. A great proportion of the Russian population feels very strongly that the west is imposing double standards. The west insisted on self-determination for the Kosovans, and Serbia is very close to the Russian heart as a fellow Orthodox country. The House may not agree with that, but that is their point of view, and imposing any amount of sanctions will not change it.
	We must stop playing power games. It is too dangerous a situation, and the west must realise that it cannot tear Ukraine away from Russia. We must stop these games of Ukraine ever joining NATO—thank God Ukraine is not in NATO because we would be involved in a war. We must stop these games.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend said yesterday in Defence questions what a different position we would be in had we let Ukraine become part of NATO. We must realise and impress on Russia that membership of NATO involves the criterion that an attack on one is an attack on all. If we are not prepared to protect a country in that way, we must not give it bogus guarantees.

Edward Leigh: Absolutely.

Ian Austin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I must finish shortly as others want to get in.
	An attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them. Poland is a completely different state of affairs from Ukraine. As I have said, we must stop the power games of trying to detach Ukraine from Russia. It is not going to happen. Russia will not allow it to happen, any more than we would allow an integral part of what we consider to be important to our soul and our history to be detached from us. It is a dangerous game—[Interruption.] Well, somebody has to give an alternative point of view. There is no point in the House of Commons if we all agree with each other all the time. I am trying to explain the Russian point of view.
	Encouraging Ukraine to join NATO is obviously absurd, but it is also extraordinarily dangerous to encourage Ukraine to join the EU. As I said, I am neither pro-Russia nor pro-Ukraine, and I am in favour—this may be a cliché—of peace and humanity. I want Ukraine to have a devolved system of administration so that the west can run itself, as can the east. Ideally if we can think in terms of free-trade areas and Ukraine having some sort of free-trade agreement with the EU, that is positive, sensible and acceptable to Russians. However, we should please not take any step further, because we will be indulging in extraordinarily dangerous power games.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). His analysis of history is extraordinarily interesting, but of course in this House we must confront the political realities that exist as a consequence of an aggressive Russia. This is where we are and that is what we must do.
	We need to recognise two or three things. First, President Putin is obsessed with energy and control. He is also, as has been noted already in this House, a bully who is bullying from a weak-ish position. We must recognise the dangers of that, because it is dangerous for weak people to get into difficult situations. Secondly, Russia is in effect becoming disconnected from the international world, and we cannot afford for that to happen. All our actions must be couched in terms of a tough approach, while considering what we must do in the long run to ensure that Russia returns as part of a proper international environment.
	We have to bear in mind what is really happening in Ukraine. This whole business drives a coach and horses through self-determination and we cannot accept that. An unstable situation has been created in an area that ought to be promoting and enjoying economic growth. Anybody who thinks it is not in Britain’s interests to have a stable Ukraine and a stable wider region is wrong, and we have to express that in those terms. There is also the question of how Ukrainians have behaved. As has already been said, there is no evidence of inappropriate actions against Russian speakers, either in Crimea or elsewhere.
	What can we do? We have to think about the next steps. The great problem is that this situation is part of a pattern of behaviour exhibited by the Russian political system which has to be stopped in its tracks. We have talked about energy, which is key to President Putin’s thinking and should be key to our solution. The EU has a huge opportunity to hang together and demonstrate how it can promote meaningful action against the Russian
	state. We must ensure that our energy policy is diverse and less reliant on Russia. We cannot allow one European state, or other European states, to be picked off. We cannot invite European states to take actions that are detrimental to themselves, without seeing support from the European Union. The challenge for the EU is twofold: to express an energy policy that gives comfort to all member states, and to recognise the importance of having an energy policy that makes it possible for Europe to act in unison.
	It is important to ensure that Europe acts together immediately in a forceful way to prevent a repetition of this situation and to act firmly as a matter of urgency. I am pleased with the overall feeling of the House. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and I endorse what the shadow Foreign Secretary has said.

Angela Eagle: We have had a short but timely debate, with a remarkable degree of agreement among Members on both sides of the House about what we are facing. The crisis in Crimea represents the most significant threat to security on the European continent in decades. The Foreign Secretary made that point when he visited Kiev earlier this month, and he made it again in his contribution at the start of the debate.
	The Russian Government are riding roughshod over Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. They are in breach of international law and their own treaty obligations. The annexation of Crimea, after an illegitimate and unconstitutional referendum, makes that crisis much worse. It is right that the international community, and indeed members of this House, speak almost completely with one voice on this grave violation of international law and norms. Our priority now must be to avoid the possibility of a further military escalation. The UK must continue to urge a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, and that is what the Foreign Secretary is doing.
	We welcome the targeted measures announced in Brussels yesterday by the United States and the EU, including measures aimed directly at those responsible for the military incursion into Crimea. Overwhelmingly, speaker after speaker in the debate has pointed out that the measures are not nearly adequate enough, given the developing situation. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) called the sanctions “pathetic and feeble” in his contribution. We heard, with some relief, that the Government have determined on a series of escalations should Russia not desist from its current activity and behaviour. We would, however, like the Leader of the House—as far as he is able—to clarify the Government’s thinking on that escalation. Many hon. Members called for economic sanctions, up to and including trade sanctions. There have been many comments from Members in all parts of the House suggesting that hitting the oligarchs in their pockets to affect their ability to take their wealth across borders is the only measure likely to work. We have to be clear that if Russia wants to stay as a member of the international community it must change course. EU leaders should set a clear timetable for that change in the next few days. Perhaps we will see that emerge from the meetings towards the end of the week.
	Labour Members are clear that we need a graduating hierarchy of diplomatic and economic trade measures to leave Russia in no doubt that more penalties will
	come if it does not start to listen and change its behaviour, and that there will be real consequences for its continued aggressive stance. Russia’s action is a flagrant abuse of international law. As many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, this is a test of the west’s resolve in upholding the values and laws that unite us. The United Kingdom, as the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), both said, has a particular responsibility to fulfil its role as an upholder of international law, the UN charter and a rule-based system of international relations. The penalties announced yesterday are a step in the right direction, but we have to ensure that that resolve improves and strengthens, rather than diminishes, in the coming weeks.
	We know that Russia is acting out of weakness. Many Members—for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)—have said that sanctions need to go further. He was not the only Member who mentioned the Magnitsky Act, which hits oligarchies and elites where they are particularly vulnerable. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) made a similar point about standing up to bullies, and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) did likewise.
	There has been remarkable agreement across the House about the importance of ensuring that we can not only take action in concert with our allies, but perhaps take other actions ourselves, as a country with one of the largest financial centres in the world. We may well be able to make a particular difference by means of asset freezes that would hit the oligarchs where it particularly hurts. I should be interested to hear the Leader of the House’s view of the Government’s ability and willingness to impose sanctions that would have that effect, both in concert with our allies and unilaterally.
	The Foreign Secretary gave some indications that there were other possibilities in the Government’s mind, such as a unilateral suspension of military co-operation with the Russian regime. He was inevitably coy—and I understand why he might want to be—about the precise form that some of the sanctions would take, but I think that Members would appreciate some indication from the Leader of the House that the Government will not rule out any such actions, both unilateral and in concert with our allies, as the weeks go on. Our Government have been working with their allies, and we must work together as a country, and as an international community, to avoid any further military escalation. We must also continue to pursue a diplomatic strategy in order to achieve that.
	Let me ask the Leader of the House some questions. What is the Government’s thinking on the establishment of a Russia-Ukraine contact group? What is their view on the escalation of sanctions, including a move to economic and trade sanctions, and will they agree to consider some of those sanctions with respect to the City of London as well as in concert with our allies? What is their view on the access of oligarchs to London’s financial markets? I hope that the Leader of the House will also be able to say something about the G8 and Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organisation, and about any other measures that the Government may be considering.
	It is good that the House is speaking with one voice about this very important matter. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to enlighten us.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am also grateful to other Members, including the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who welcomed the debate. As I told the House yesterday, we will continue to update it—as my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done—and to consider the need for further debate on what are clearly fast-moving events.
	As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, the crisis in Ukraine is the most serious test of European security in the 21st century thus far. We have a vital interest to uphold: we want to see a stable, prosperous and unified Ukraine. Unfortunately, it is clear that Russia’s actions in Crimea have trampled over fundamental principles of international law, that they threaten the future of Ukraine, and that they have cast a deep shadow over European security and stability.
	The events of recent weeks have provoked frustration and anger throughout the international community—sentiments that have rightly been reflected in today’s debate. I am grateful to all the Members who have given us the benefit of their experience and views. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) a sense of the solidarity that has been displayed today. I hope that that solidarity will be communicated, along with the agreement that we have observed not only between the principal parties in the House, but among Back Benchers who have expressed strong views, strongly held, which I hope will be understood and listened to.
	The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), expressed welcome support for the steps that the Government were taking, and made it clear that he favoured the toughest possible sanctions. The shadow Leader of the House asked about sanctions, and I can tell her that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is looking for the strongest set of measures that can be negotiated and agreed. As the shadow Foreign Secretary will appreciate, it is not possible to specify those at this stage, in advance of the European Council, but I think that what the Foreign Secretary said about the measures that have already been taken was important.
	Many Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), rightly expressed—in some cases, very strongly—a sense of the inadequacy of sanctions thus far. At last week’s Council the Prime Minister secured a step-by-step strategy, the purpose of which was to de-escalate and deter; it was not to escalate sanctions. It was hoped that the response of the Russian Government in the course of the last weekend, and not least the meetings that took place here in London at the end of last week, might have led to that de-escalation and might have deterred the Russian Government, but I think they must be aware now, and will be even more aware after the European Council and the steps our international partners take, that their failure to de-escalate the situation and their proceeding in the way they have will lead to far-reaching consequences.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will not give way: Members must forgive me, as I have only three minutes to respond to the debate.
	The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the G8. We have agreed to suspend further planning for a G8 summit in Sochi this summer. I can also tell the House that we have endorsed the United States’ proposal that the G7 will meet in the margins of the nuclear security summit in The Hague early next week and that the March European Council will take a decision on the EU-Russia summit later this week. It is, I think, clear that it cannot be business as usual between the EU and Russia.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the contact group. Our main objective is to bring the Russian and Ukrainian Governments together to discuss finding a diplomatic solution to the current crisis and to de-escalate the situation. The UK and partners are happy to support and help facilitate such talks, but they must take place without prejudice to Crimea’s future status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) rightly said that in that sense the Russian proposal is entirely disingenuous.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) talked of the interdependence of European countries with Russia. A number of Members rightly made the point that we are now in a position where, as we consider further economic and trade sanctions, there will be far-reaching costs and consequences for Russia, but there will also be a degree of sacrifice and pain to be taken on our part, and European countries must understand and accept that.
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made a persuasive speech. Many Members rightly thoroughly endorsed her view that while we do not have to subscribe precisely to historical analogies, we must not allow aggression to go unanswered, we must not go down the route of appeasement, and we must make sure that that kind of use of force in contravention of international law and the sovereignty of nations is not allowed to succeed.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Exeter and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) asked about the Magnitsky case. The Government have long called for a full and transparent investigation into the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. We continue to raise the case with the Russian Government at all levels and make clear the importance of ensuring it is brought to a thorough and transparent conclusion. The UK does not intend to introduce a US-style Magnitsky list. We have a robust visa regime that enables us to deny entry to those who commit human rights abuses.
	A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), made it clear that the Russian objective is to destabilise and control, but we should understand—the shadow Foreign Secretary was right—that this is coming from a position of weakness on the part of the Russian Government, not from a position of strength. That is why we must take a strong position in response and stand up to bullying behaviour.
	Time does not permit me to respond more to other Members, but what is clear from this debate is that there is a determination among Members of this House to uphold international law and to take robust measures in response to flagrant breaches of international norms and international law by the Russian Government.

Dominic Raab: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr Speaker: I think the Leader of the House has concluded his speech.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered Ukraine.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two years ago, on 12 March 2012, this House unanimously agreed a motion calling on the Government to introduce precisely the kind of Magnitsky list that the Leader of the House just mentioned. At the time, the Government said they were not going to oppose the motion—indeed, those in the Government shouted “aye” along with the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who had introduced the motion. Yet despite it having been unanimously agreed, the Leader of the House has today, as far as I can understand it, reneged on that position. Far from being more robust with Russia, we are being less robust today than we were two years ago. Have I got that right?

Mr Speaker: Far be it from me to say whether anybody has reneged or not, although I note in passing that to renege, whether disagreeable, not least in this case to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is not unparliamentary—nothing unparliamentary has happened. He is a considerable expert in parliamentary procedure and has just written a two-volume tome on the history of Parliament. He may well be very dissatisfied, but he has vented his concerns and they are on the record.

Julian Lewis: rose—

Mr Speaker: Clearly the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is most agitated also to raise a point of order, and we had better hear from him.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you noticed my eccentric gesticulations and today you note my great agitation. I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has wide ramifications, similar to those we were concerned about yesterday: what is the status of motions passed, either in substantive votes or nem. con. votes in this House, when they are the result of the Backbench Business Committee agreeing that something should be debated and voted on? There is something a bit wrong when the House passes a motion and the Government appear to take no notice of it. What is the point of having a vote in that case?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has opened veritably a can of parliamentary worms. The issue he raises is important, and I do not seek to brush it off for one moment, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair. What I say to him in all seriousness and solemnity, recognising that the concern he expresses is probably
	more widely shared, is that ultimately it is for the House to decide what is the meaning of a particular decision taken. That is not a matter for the Chair but it is a matter for the House, and it is a point to which he and others can return if they so wish, but we cannot dilate upon it now.
	[Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Rhondda could if he were in order, but he is not and so he will not. We will leave it there for now.

Local Government: Combined Authority Orders

Mr Speaker: With the permission of the House, we will debate the combined authority orders together.

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move,
	That the draft Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.

Mr Speaker: With this we shall consider the following motions:
	That the draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
	That the draft Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
	That the draft West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.

Brandon Lewis: These orders, if approved, will bring about the establishment of combined authorities in three of our major metropolitan areas: across Merseyside and Liverpool; around Sheffield and South Yorkshire; and in West Yorkshire. In each of those areas the combined authority will be responsible for economic development and regeneration, and for transport. As all the councils in each area have agreed, their combined authority will be able to recognise and exercise their functions on economic development and regeneration. Their combined authority will also have the transport functions currently exercised by the area’s integrated transport authority, and that ITA will be abolished on the establishment of the combined authority.
	Central to what we are considering today are two key priorities for this coalition Government: growth and localism. Achieving economic growth is essential to the recovery of our economy and rebuilding our future after the economic failures and spiralling of debt that we inherited when we took office in May 2010. It is through achieving economic growth that jobs are created, that incomes of hard-working families can grow and that we can build sustainable prosperity for communities across the country. The policies of this coalition Government are delivering, with unemployment now at just 7.2%; with increasing numbers of people in employment; with more women in work than ever before; and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in November, with growth then estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility at 1.4%.
	An important element of our policies, as we made clear in our White Paper response to Lord Heseltine’s report on growth, is that local authorities have a vital role to play. Councils should put economic development at the heart of all that they do, collaborating with private sector partners and others across a functional economic area. A combined authority is a means for councils to undertake that collaboration, which will be the foundation of all that they do to promote economic growth. It is not surprising, therefore, that each of the proposed combined authorities has been recognised as key in the city deals that we have agreed with each area.
	If Parliament approves the draft orders, we expect those authorities to be equally key in any future growth deals with funding from the local growth fund.
	Under our policy of localism, it is entirely up to councils whether they choose to collaborate through a combined authority or through some other arrangement. Our whole approach to combined authorities, which is reflected in the draft orders, is one of localism. When councils come forward with a proposal for a combined authority that commands wide local support, our policy is this. If we consider that the statutory conditions are met, we will invite Parliament to approve a draft order that provides for the establishment of the proposed combined authority, which will enable the councils concerned to give full effect to their ambitions for joint working.
	Localism will guide our response to any proposals for changes to a combined authority after its establishment, such as if another council wishes to join the combined authority as a constituent council, or if a council that is a member of a combined authority wishes to leave. In any such case, our policy will be to seek parliamentary approval for a draft order that enables the change to be made, provided that we are clear that the change meets the statutory conditions.

John Healey: The Minister is making the interesting argument that localism will be the principle that guides future decisions about the development of the combined authorities. Does that principle also apply to the devolution of further powers and responsibilities to combined authorities if they properly request such powers?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the heart of the Localism Act 2011, which was about devolving power not only to local authorities but to local communities to empower people to get things done. If local authorities have further ideas about things that they want to do, I encourage them to come and talk to us. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and I will be interested to talk to local authorities about what more we can do to empower them to develop economic growth and take their communities forward.
	In each of the draft orders, we have considered the circumstances of the combined authority proposal that the councils have made, as the law requires, and we have concluded that it is right for us to pursue our localist policy in those cases. We have considered each proposal for a combined authority in the light of the statutory conditions set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, under which any combined authority is established. Those conditions are that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must consider that establishing the combined authority is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport in the area; improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the area; improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to economic development and regeneration in the area; and improve the economic conditions in the area. We consider that those tests are unambiguously met in each case.
	In short, each combined authority will bring together decision making on the closely interrelated issues of transport and economic development, and will provide
	for more efficient, effective, and transparent decision making by councils, with their partners, across the whole of the functional economic area they serve. We consider that it is right to establish those combined authorities, having regard, as the 2009 Act requires, to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. Further, we are clear that in each of the areas, the combined authority will command wide local support.

Julian Smith: What consideration has been given to the impact on the communities that will be left behind when a local authority decides to get into bed with one of the new combined authorities?

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making, but nobody will be left behind. Other areas will be able to form their own combined authorities and develop their own economic growth, and we would encourage them to do so. I think that he is referring directly to the situation in York, which does not form part of today’s discussions; that debate will follow at a later date. There will also be a consultation process, and the people and businesses in York, as well as the local enterprise partnership, the local authorities and the Members concerned, will obviously want to feed into that process their views on the effects of the proposals on York, and on the benefits or otherwise of York being part of a combined authority. I have made it clear that we will facilitate opportunities for areas such as York to join a combined authority later. We are also ensuring that a local authority will be able to step away from such an arrangement if it feels right for it to do so.

Julian Smith: I thank the Minister for that full response. When he and his Department consider any application by York to join the new West Yorkshire combined authority, I urge him to consider carefully the impact that that would have on constituencies such as mine in Skipton and Ripon and on other rural areas that rely on their relationship with York.

Brandon Lewis: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will give that matter our full consideration. One reason that the arrangements in York are not part of today’s orders is that we intend, before purdah, to lay the paperwork for a legislative reform order and to have a full consultation process, and I am sure that he and others will wish to feed into that process, offering views both for and against the proposals. Their views will be given full consideration.
	We are clear that in each of these areas the combined authority would command good support from local businesses, from the local enterprise partnership, from other public bodies, from institutions such as the universities in the area and from local people and their democratically elected representatives. Accordingly, on the basis of our localist approach, we are seeking the approval of the House for these draft orders today—orders to which each of the constituent councils has consented. We are doing this on the basis of the information that we have about each proposed combined authority. That includes the governance reviews undertaken by the councils in each of the areas, as required by the 2009 Act if they are to propose a combined authority.

John Healey: I welcome the orders that have been placed before the House. The Minister described them a moment ago as “draft orders”. If they are draft orders, when will we get the actual orders? He rightly said earlier that the integrated transport authorities would be abolished on the day on which the orders are made. For the sake of clarity, will he therefore tell us whether the orders that he is asking the House to approve today are draft orders or the orders that will actually do the job that he has described?

Brandon Lewis: I think that there is an issue around wording here. They are draft orders until the House approves them. When that happens, they become the orders. I am asking Members to vote today on the orders, but they are technically draft orders until we approve them.

John Healey: I thank the Minister for that clarification. Will he therefore tell me the date on which the orders will come into force and on which the integrated transport authorities will effectively be abolished?

Brandon Lewis: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come back to him on that question later this afternoon.

George Howarth: It is 1 April.

Brandon Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

George Howarth: The Minister is probably in a better position to know about this than I am, but I think that all these arrangements come into effect on 1 April.

Brandon Lewis: Yes, that is the intention. I was going to come to that in a few moments. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	As I was saying, we are doing this on the basis of the information that we have about each proposed combined authority. That also includes the results of the consultations we have undertaken for each of the proposed combined authorities—again, as required by the 2009 Act—as well as detailed proposals from each group of councils on how they wish their combined authority to operate, to take decisions and, most importantly, to be open, transparent and accountable. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and I share a view on that.

John Pugh: On the question of transparency and openness, I note that the explanatory memorandum states:
	“The Government has now provided in the Order that it is mandatory for the Combined Authority to have an overview and scrutiny committee which can be made up of members across the parties.”
	In that context, would political representation on such a committee have to be mixed, or could there be representation by just one party, even in an area with very mixed political representation?

Brandon Lewis: I will touch on the make-up in a moment. It would be representative of the political representation across the combined authorities—so a mixed make-up.

John Pugh: Proportionally?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, proportionally.
	On the draft orders, three provide for the establishment of combined authorities across Greater Merseyside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Each of the three draft orders specifies the formal legal name of the combined authority to which all the councils concerned have consented. How that authority will brand itself, including the use of any brand name, will be entirely a matter for the combined authority.
	The three draft orders also make provision for the abolition of the integrated transport authority for the area. They also set out the transport and economic functions of the combined authority and its membership and constitutional arrangements. Those constitutional arrangements include a requirement for there to be at least one overview and scrutiny committee, with a membership drawn from members of the councils concerned, to hold the combined authority to account. Good governance practice will mean that such committees will be politically balanced, enabling appropriate representation of councils’ minority parties in the governance of the command authority.
	The fourth draft order simply makes amendments to transport legislation, which are applicable to all combined authorities. The draft orders will come into force the day after they are made, and the intention is for that to be 31 March.
	The draft orders, if approved, will open the way for the councils in each of the functional economic areas surrounding some of our greatest cities to deepen and intensify their collaborative joint working with each other and with public and private sector partners. By doing that, they will open the way to boosting economic growth in three of our major conurbations, increasing investment, and promoting more strongly and effectively the economic prosperity of those areas, which is something that we all want to see happen in our communities. I therefore commend these draft orders to the House.

Andy Sawford: I welcome the opportunity to debate these important statutory instruments, which will help local authorities in key areas of the country to work together more effectively in the interests of their communities. It is good to see so many Members here to participate in the debate and to share local perspectives on how to ensure that the combined authority areas can succeed.
	Labour is broadly supportive of the statutory instruments. We note that they have the support of the local authorities in the areas concerned. Indeed there is clear evidence of support from the public, businesses and other partners in the areas. The authorities concerned are overwhelmingly Labour. Along with Greater Manchester, they are giving a lead to all of local government, and we are proud of them. Thanks to their committed and innovative leadership, those authorities are making a real difference and showing the way forward through a cost of living crisis created by this Government.

Julian Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that leadership was the reason why the Labour-led York council played petty politics with the York and North Yorkshire local enterprise partnership last year—petty
	politics that have continued into this year? Such behaviour shows that the level of leadership in the council is really pretty depressing and low.

Andy Sawford: Well, I know petty politics when I see it, and the hon. Gentleman’s remarks sound very much like it. His remarks were inconsistent with his earlier comments about the importance of the partnership between the authorities that surround York. I will come on to the arrangements in that area of the country: I want to raise issues about York, which may interest the hon. Gentleman. Whether or not he will agree with me on them remains to be seen.
	For economic success across the country, we must make the most of the strengths of different sectors across our country, and develop new skills and industries. Clearly, greater local collaboration and co-operation can produce much better results on issues such as transport, housing, employment, skills and training than national programmes run from Whitehall can. Combined authorities have a key role to play in that, as many councils believe that to deliver the best outcomes for their communities, the time has come to take current governance models to the next level, moving from informal collaboration to joint decision making on some issues.
	There is an irony in the fact that the Government now recognise the value of combined authorities, which were first introduced in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, about which Government Members have been contemptuous both in opposition and in government. The Act made provision for the establishment of economic prosperity boards and for combined authorities. After some years of drift, during which the Government tore up the regional development agency structure in an act of economic vandalism at a time when our economy was beginning to recover from a global recession, Lord Heseltine’s much-trumpeted review in 2013 came up with the big idea of combined authorities. We welcome the Government’s conversion, however reluctant it is, but we regret the delay.
	The new combined authorities will bring many benefits, including the strong and visible collective leadership of an area with democratic accountability and an influential and unified voice. That leadership will be able to have a single conversation with the Government, national agencies and business leaders and to align decision making and economic growth at a strategic level so that there is a single framework underpinned by a coherent strategy and investment programme. It will have the opportunity to draw together a range of funding sources, including EU funds—this has been a key issue in the recent interregnum, during which there has not been a clear strategy from central Government—and a devolved local growth fund. The combined authorities also create the opportunity for closer working across the public sector to integrate functions and services and provide innovative solutions to the challenges of reduced budgets, which particularly affect the authorities in the combined authority areas that have had an above-average cut in a deeply unfair funding settlement.
	The Greater Manchester combined authority shows the benefit of the system: its achievements include the major refurbishment of Bolton and Rochdale railway stations; the revolving infrastructure fund, which is
	worth £30 million a year; permission for up to 7,000 new homes to be built by 2017; a programme of low-carbon measures; and overall savings of £11.7 million a year.
	I recommend that all Members of the House read the excellent report recently published by Labour’s local government innovation task force, which includes many of the success stories of the Greater Manchester combined authority and local authority partnerships across the country. I firmly believe that the West Yorkshire combined authority, the South Yorkshire combined authority and the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral combined authority will succeed as Greater Manchester has. I also hope that the order will soon be tabled for the north-east combined authority.
	The Association of North East Councils tells me that establishing a combined authority for the north-east, to put into legal form what the north-east leadership board has been doing by consent for some time, is widely supported. I hope that there can be progress.

Brandon Lewis: I can provide a piece of information to help the shadow Minister: that order was tabled on 13 March, so it will come to us for consideration shortly.

Andy Sawford: I thank the Minister for that clarification and we hope that the order will be before us soon. I understood that the conversation in that region between the local authorities had made substantial progress and that they were looking to move forward. The Opposition will support the establishment of the north-east combined authority when that is proposed, however it is named.
	Today’s steps on combined authorities are welcome but still more can be done on additional freedoms. The Opposition are considering the case being made by organisations including the Local Government Association, the special interest group of municipal authorities, ANEC and other bodies for additional powers. We agree with them that there is a need for a clearer plan for sub-national government that, crucially, works for all areas of the country. There is a need for further consideration of what arrangements will work best in two-tier areas, for example. There needs to be further devolution of funding streams. The Opposition are committed to significant reform in that area: for example, we will give local authorities a strong role in co-commissioning the Work programme.
	The new combined authorities are keen to have a dialogue with the Minister, as he is no doubt aware, about “earn back” schemes for their areas. Such a scheme has been a feature of the Greater Manchester combined authority. It will be useful to hear the Minister’s thoughts, and to hear about any progress that has been made with the three new combined authorities.
	There is also the question of legal restrictions around the combined authorities’ ability to borrow for non-transport purposes. The authorities have argued that that will remove a significant barrier to the unlocking of local resources to support infrastructure and growth. That change has been strongly advocated by Greater Manchester. What is the Government’s view on that and how do they intend to respond? Are the Government prepared to consider the request for combined authorities to be able to recover VAT, as local authorities do?
	In relation to York, may we have an update from the Minister on the important matter of non-contiguous boundaries affecting authorities’ ability to combine? The Minister and I have discussed that issue informally on several occasions, and there have been exchanges in the House between us and between the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State on the matter. Although those exchanges have been encouraging, there is frustration in some parts of the country about the delay. The Minister may be aware that Portsmouth and Southampton councils, for example, are keen to work more closely together but feel that they are being prevented from doing so by Hampshire county council, which does not wish to be involved in such joint arrangements. We urge the Government to consider how that issue can be dealt with in all parts of the country, but the Government may choose to make specific arrangements in individual cases.
	As the Minister knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has made the case for the City of York, which wishes to join the Leeds city region. The Secretary of State has agreed that that makes sense. He told my right hon. Friend on 28 October 2013:
	“I am confident we can have a resolution before Christmas.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 690.]
	However, in a written answer in February the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is in his place, said that
	“we are now considering consulting before the summer on a Legislative Reform Order”—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 120W.]
	That may be the order to which he referred earlier, which the Government hope to bring forward before the purdah period.
	My right hon. Friend raised the delay at Communities and Local Government questions on 3 March. The Secretary of State said:
	“I did not specify which Christmas I meant. However, I gave the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking, and it was a proper undertaking. Various legal obstacles were put in our way, but we intend to consult, and, subject to the position being legally satisfactory, there will be a resolution. Given that I gave an undertaking from the Dispatch Box to resolve the matter, I will not lightly do otherwise.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 621.]
	We welcome that assurance. We have appreciated the constructive dialogue that has taken place between the Opposition and the Government. We accept that the Secretary of State’s undertaking was given in good faith, but I am sure the Minister understands that there is some disappointment that the matter is dragging on.

Julian Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify to the House why he is so eager for York to get into bed with the West Yorkshire combined authority? Will he come clean with the House and with voters in York and north Yorkshire? Why is he pushing this hobby horse?

Andy Sawford: The hon. Gentleman may wish to ask the Secretary of State why he agrees with us that the proposal makes sense. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman pushes me to say why I am keen: I am a localist. If the
	City of York believes that the proposal is in the interests of the community that it serves, subject to a proper process—there will be a consultation, and there will have to be compelling evidence, as there has been in the other three areas that we are considering today, that this is the right way forward—and if it is the wish of local people, of course it should go ahead. It is undemocratic of the hon. Gentleman to seek to hold back the economic development of the City of York.

Julian Smith: What does the hon. Gentleman say about the commitment that York has made—half-in and half-out—to the York and North Yorkshire local enterprise partnership? Should he not be urging York council to play a much more vigorous part in that partnership and to stop thinking about getting over to where the grass is greener in the new West Yorkshire authority?

Andy Sawford: If the people of York and the elected local authority in York believe that it is in the interests of their community, they should have the right to make that case to the Government. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, he can put his view forward. In the end, he will have to persuade his own side, not me. I am persuaded that if that is what the City of York wants, of course it should go forward. However, the hon. Gentleman does have an important point about the relationship between the combined authorities and the local enterprise partnerships. I shall refer to that.
	We accept that the Secretary of State gave the undertaking in good faith. He said that there are legal obstacles. Is it possible to address the specific issue of the City of York and address those legal obstacles separately, or are they in effect bound up together? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. In view of the constructive dialogue that has taken place, it would be helpful for us to have a greater understanding of the legal dimension that the Government are grappling with.
	There is a wider issue about how the geography of the country and the structure of local government mean that establishing combined authorities is much more difficult in many areas of the country. The hon. Gentleman alluded to that in relation to arrangements in Yorkshire. The arrangements for LEPs around the country vary hugely, and they already reflect the complex geography. There are issues regarding LEPs that need further consideration, especially around how coherently they operate with the boundaries of combined authorities. For example, the Sheffield city region LEP includes a number of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire districts. However, given that the two county councils will not be members of the combined authority, non-South Yorkshire districts cannot be constituent members of the authority, and South Yorkshire members must always hold a majority of the vote.
	If LEPs are to co-exist with combined authorities and strategic counties, they cannot merely operate in the same space. There needs to be a clear distinction of roles and responsibilities. The critical point is that while LEPs can provide private sector input and insight, which is to be welcomed, they are neither statutory nor democratically accountable bodies, and in their current form they should not hold resources themselves. The Minister will no doubt fondly recall the extensive debate
	on the accountability of LEPs during the passage of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, and I hope that it is something he will consider further in light of the development of combined authority arrangements. The Opposition will work closely with local authorities and talk with LEPs throughout the country about their future role, particularly through the review being undertaken by Lord Adonis.
	Before I conclude, I want to comment on Total Place, which the Government have rather reluctantly taken forward in their limited approach to community budgets, whereas the Opposition see much more potential and believe that combined authorities will take a lead. As well as investing more in prevention and early intervention, it is crucial that we support councils to deliver economic growth in all areas of the country. To do that, we will extend the model of city deals throughout local government, devolving power over housing and planning, and jobs and skills, but councils and communities must come together to decide how best to use the powers, and develop arrangements that suit local needs. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) calls “the English deal”.
	Despite the Government promising to push power down, it has taken four years for the orders to come forward. It will be left to the next Labour Government radically to reconfigure the way in which services are designed and delivered. By devolving ineffective national programmes to local areas we will give local people more power to create services that are more responsive to local conditions, build in people’s involvement in decisions more closely, and power our economies forward throughout the country in a way that is fair.

Julian Sturdy: I join colleagues on both sides of the House in welcoming the Secretary of State’s creation of combined authorities. Far from stepping back and passively surrendering to the unyielding rise of London, with its increasingly dominant role in our economy during the past 30 years—which I know the Secretary of State would never do—the Government are rightly taking the necessary and vital steps to tackle the north-south divide head on.
	The reality is that all major conurbations that have worked towards the combined authority status have, in their day, been global leaders in their respective field—steel production in Sheffield, shipbuilding in Newcastle and Liverpool, cotton spinning in Manchester, which was the world’s first industrialised city, and woollen textiles in Leeds, which in 1770 handled one sixth of the country’s entire export trade.
	Alas, an illustrious history alone is not enough to sustain jobs in today’s fast-paced and frenetic global economy. We are, as has rightly been pointed out many times, in a global race, not just with our established rivals, such as New York, Paris and Tokyo, but with the new emerging business centres of the east, such as Dhaka in Bangladesh, Hyderabad in India and Guangzhou in China, a city of some 14 million people of which many in this country will not have heard. Providing our major northern cities with the tools they need to compete, not just against London but against everyone else in the international marketplace, is therefore essential to the future economic prosperity of the north and the rest of
	the country at large. Combined authorities show every sign of being successful in future, provided that the well-being of local residents and the long-term interests of the business community remain at the centre of their decision making.
	While I am clearly in favour of combined authorities in principle, and although it undoubtedly makes sense for Leeds, Bradford and the surrounding west riding authorities to join together, I am not yet convinced that York’s destiny lies with the West Yorkshire combined authority. For those Members who are not aware, York is not, and has never been, part of the west riding. Although its economy is undoubtedly intertwined with that of Leeds and the surrounding region, its connections with the rest of North Yorkshire run deeper still, as I know the Secretary of State, being a fellow Yorkshireman, is well aware.
	It is with North Yorkshire that York shares its police force and its fire and rescue services. Indeed, as has been touched on already, York has no boundaries with West Yorkshire whatsoever, encircled as it is by the North Yorkshire districts of Selby, Harrogate, Hambleton, Ryedale and East Riding. How, then, is York placed to benefit meaningfully from its membership of the West Yorkshire combined authority when it lies at the heart of North Yorkshire, and in more ways than one?

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. In his summary of all the fantastic elements of York and North Yorkshire, will he pay tribute to the work of Barry Dodd and the local enterprise partnership, which has been leading the way in ensuring that we get inward investment and new businesses set up in both York and North Yorkshire?

Julian Sturdy: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He is absolutely right. The York, North Yorkshire and East Riding enterprise partnership has taken amazing strides forward, ably led by Barry Dodd, and it is doing great work. It is really important for the LEP that York plays a key role within it, and rightly so.
	As York does not share contiguous boundaries with the rest of the West Yorkshire combined authority, it is now to be a non-constituent member without voting rights. The residents of York will presumably have to contribute funds to the combined authority—there is still some uncertainly over that—but they will not possess a vote on important matters. What safeguards will be put in place to stop those taxes being used to improve transport priorities in West Yorkshire, rather than in York?
	Ultimately, it seems to me that we need not only a West Yorkshire combined authority, but a North and East Yorkshire combined authority, to act as an essential counterbalance and to support the rural hinterland that York sits at the centre of—geographically, culturally and economically. In essence, York is the heartbeat of that rural hinterland of North Yorkshire, and removing it could have far-reaching economic consequences.

Julian Smith: Is not that why it is so surprising to hear the shadow Minister’s complete lack of understanding of the economic ties that bring together the highly rural areas I represent and the outskirts of York that my hon. Friend represents?

Julian Sturdy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a real danger that if York is removed, the North and East Yorkshire conurbations will lack a centre. I fear that it would be very difficult for a combined authority to come forward in those circumstances. Removing York would essentially leave North and East Yorkshire alone.

John Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Sturdy: I am more than happy to give way to another Yorkshire MP.

John Healey: The beauty of the Minister’s solution is that it will not take York out of the heart of North Yorkshire. As the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) has argued, York’s economy is intertwined with West Yorkshire’s. This is a variable geometry that allows it to be part of a combined authority for some of the strategic economic decisions that it can play a part in and benefit from while still maintaining its leading role within the wider North Yorkshire area for other purposes and services.

Julian Sturdy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He might not be aware that York plays a key role in both LEPs, because it sits within not only the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP but the Leeds LEP. It is absolutely vital that the city of York plays a leading role in both LEPs. Worryingly, over the past 12 months York took a decision to leave the North Yorkshire LEP and put all its eggs into the Leeds LEP basket. Thankfully, after some strong persuasion, that situation has been reversed. However, it showed the real danger that York could, in essence, walk away from its hinterland area for completely the wrong reasons, and we have to guard against that.
	York, as a leading centre of innovation and wealth creation in the north, has so much to offer, but such opportunities must not be squandered by jumping on the first bus that comes along, which is what I fear is happening. In my view, that bus is also travelling in the wrong direction. York must not rush headlong into a decision. It must consider all its options, in consultation with local businesses and local residents, as the shadow Minister said, and then come to a transparent decision—I underline the word “transparent”—that reflects the views of the majority, not just the few.

George Howarth: I intend to support the draft statutory instruments, and I shall give my reasons for doing so.
	What used to be known as Merseyside and is now known as the Liverpool city region has, over the years, underperformed in comparison with the place we are most often compared with, Greater Manchester. That might seem a strange thing for me to say, as a Merseyside MP, but I have said it publicly before. Indeed, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has heard me do so privately and publicly. I say it because we have been very reluctant, as individual authorities rather than collectively, to decide on what was right strategically for the whole city region as opposed to what might be difficult, in the short term, to argue in St Helens, Halton or Knowsley. There has been no mechanism, and often no will, to get
	together and say, “This is important for the whole city region. We should all get behind it and hopefully bring it to a successful conclusion.”
	I will cite an example. It is significant that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is here as I discuss this. Under the previous Government, there was a well-worked-up project called Merseytram line 1, which the transport authority had taken to a very late stage; it had carried out all the consultation and the project was ready to go ahead. My hon. Friend, who was the Minister responsible at the time, had to decline it because of opposition from within the Liverpool city region. In other words, some parts of the city region were unwilling to support something that did not go through their own boroughs on the grounds that there was no immediate benefit to them, even though it was of strategic importance to the wider city region. That was a very short-sighted way to behave, and I said so at the time. That is partly why I welcome these orders.

John Pugh: Having said that, the scheme would have been much more successful had the route gone first to the airport, which would have benefited the whole region.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I do not agree with him. Even if he is right, is the fact that he did not agree with the specific route a reason to scupper the whole project? By saying, “If I can’t get the route I want, we won’t have a tram at all,” I think he has made the point I am trying to demonstrate. My criticism of how we have responded in the past is supported by and encapsulated in his intervention.

Derek Twigg: I thank my right hon. Friend for making some very important points. I know the history well. There is now a much greater will in the Merseyside authorities to work together and this is probably an opportune time to do this, because there is a realisation that we have to work more closely together on strategic transport and economic issues.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is the case I am trying make, although perhaps not as pithily as he has. I will try to develop the argument, but before I move on I want to say that I am particularly indebted to the chief executive of Knowsley borough council, Sheena Ramsey, and her staff for the briefing they have provided for this debate.
	I want to make a few points about the proposals as they stand. How can I put this? The glass is half full, and I want to explain why it is not entirely full. It is important that the combined authority will have responsibility for strategic decision making on economic development, transport, housing and employment and skills. It is time that we as a city region had that focus, which we have not always had, or even been able to have, in the past. My briefing states that the combined authority will
	“be focussed entirely on strategic governance to facilitate economic growth.”
	As the Minister said, that is an important new departure and one that should be welcomed. Those are the potential themes and powers, and I hope that the governance system will work.
	That is why I am in favour of the order and why, in the unlikely event of a Division, I would vote for it. On the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014, paragraph 8.11 of the explanatory memorandum states:
	“All of the statutory consultees, the Local Enterprise Partnership and the neighbouring local authorities all support the establishment of the Combined Authority.”
	That is fine; it is even a breakthrough in terms of our history. Paragraph 8.12 goes on to say:
	“However, the statutory consultees asked for the name to be changed from that which was proposed in the consultation (The Greater Merseyside Combined Authority). Their responses were in support of a name that included the word ‘Liverpool’, rather than ‘Merseyside’. The six constituent authorities and the Local Enterprise Partnership stated their preference for ‘Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’. Having taken account of all of the comments made”—
	this is ludicrous—
	“the Government has decided the name in the Order, to which the statutory consultees have now all consented, of ‘the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority’—
	a name that really rolls off the tongue. It will be instantly forgettable for anybody who hears it.
	I do have a serious point to make. The Secretary of State champions the cause of localism—I have no reason to disbelieve him—as, indeed, does my party these days. For central Government, localism means being prepared to let go a little and to say, “Well, if that’s what local authorities want to do, that’s their decision, and if they get it wrong, they’ll be punished by the electorate.” That is the essence of what localism is all about. I am sure that the Minister will not confirm this, but my information is that the person who decided that the combined authority could not be called the Liverpool city region was none other than the Secretary of State. Why on earth did he want to interfere with the naming of the new combined authority and, having decided to interfere, why did he come up with a name such as the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral combined authority?
	We could argue that the name is a very accurate description of the areas concerned, but I honestly believe that this is a lesson for us all, and certainly for those in government or who aspire to be in government. If we are serious about localism, we should let local authorities make the wise decisions of which they are capable, and not tell them what to call a new combined authority. It seems to me to be an utter waste and, frankly, a misapplication of the time available to the Secretary of State, who should be getting on with more important things than interfering with this name.
	A slight problem that has been a source of some controversy in my part of the world in recent weeks is that, because there is a directly elected mayor in Liverpool—Joe Anderson—the governance system is potentially asymmetric. The fact that one person is directly elected as the mayor of the city of Liverpool while the other local authorities all have leaders might make the system asymmetric. There has been a bit of a spat in the local media about who will chair the combined authority, and whether the elected mayor should do so. I do not want to interfere in that discussion. I have nothing but praise to heap on the shoulders of Joe Anderson, the elected mayor of Liverpool, who is doing
	a good job, but the fact is that he has not been directly elected as the mayor of Knowsley, Halton, St Helens, Wirral or Sefton, which may create a bit of asymmetry in the system.
	Ultimately, my solution would be to have an elected mayor for the city region in the long term. That would mean that there was a direct relationship, on such issues as transport, between the person elected by the whole city region, and the powers available to them and their accountability to a wider electorate. We cannot allow a mayor elected for one local authority to acquire by accretion—I am not saying that that is Joe Anderson’s intention, because I know that it is not—powers in areas of which they were not elected to be mayor, which is a potential problem.

Derek Twigg: That point is very important. Most people would recognise the need for and be sympathetic to having the kind of transport and economic strategy that could be developed by the combined authority in a city region, but they clearly do not want the individual local authorities that they elect to lose powers to a wider body. There is certainly no support for that in my constituency.

George Howarth: Frankly, there would be no support for that in Knowsley, St Helens or Wirral. The public do not want the powers that their local authority has to be passed on to some other body. That is not what is proposed. They would also not want those powers to be passed on to a mayor who has been elected by one area, but not by the wider city region. I repeat that I mean no criticism of the individual concerned, who is doing a good job. It is just that there are two systems operating within the one city region.
	I think that we will eventually reach the answer that I have put forward. In fact, as the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells will confirm, we could have gone down that route on this occasion, but that was not the decision that the local authorities made. At one memorable meeting, I predicted that that would be the case, based on past form. However, those problems can be confronted in the fullness of time and are not barriers to going ahead with the order.
	I am happy to support the order and to wish the new, inelegantly titled city region all the best for the future. I hope that it will do the job that it is billed to do, because we desperately need that in our city region.

John Pugh: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). We have talked about these subjects many times in private and public settings. However, I do not share his enthusiasm for city region mayors.
	The orders will be passed in any case, but I want to point out four distinct problems as quickly as I can. The first is the problem of peripheries. Although we talk much about communities, the orders are about councils. Councils and communities are not quite the same thing. Communities that are on the periphery of council areas, such as my town of Southport, often feel overlooked in such arrangements. I am sure that the Minister, as a representative of a seaside town, will understand that
	seaside towns have a special and distinct offer to make in respect of tourism, which might be lost in a city region picture.
	The second problem, which we must all acknowledge honestly, is that the authorities to be combined are not of equal size. There is always the problem of the big player, whether it be Liverpool, Manchester or possibly Leeds. Manchester has dealt with the problem extraordinarily well. The combined authority is not chaired by Manchester. The system thrives in Manchester because the personnel work very well together. We cannot guarantee that that will happen everywhere.
	The third problem is that of spare-part authorities. I will use the example of west Lancashire, which adjoins the Liverpool city region—I will call it that to save time. We have to accept that local authority boundaries are often the result more of gerrymandering than of intelligent design. West Lancs is very much part of many aspects of the Liverpool city region. For example, the Merseyrail transport system runs right through west Lancs. It is part of a two-tier system and at some point that anomaly will be recognised. I would like the Minister to say how that will be dealt with and how we can have not just variable geometry, but variable geography.
	Lastly, I would like the Minister to say a few more words about proper scrutiny. At times, the political culture in some city regions can be somewhat monolithic—it has been recently. Its tradition is certainly adversarial. I am sure that some political players in the regions would be perfectly happy to meet in private and to strike deals away from the public and opposition members, and probably away from MPs as well. It is therefore necessary to hardwire proper scrutiny arrangements into the system. That is essential not just because it is a good thing, but because there has to be public confidence in the system. There will not be public confidence unless there is transparency and proper scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will address that issue, along with the issue of boundaries.

John Healey: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who reminded the House just how complex any system or blueprint can be if the objective is to make it universal. That is why the Government are right to help groups of local authorities find a way to come together when that reflects a desire in their local communities. It is a question of responding to demand.
	The Minister rightly told the House that he is ready to make the membership of the combined authorities as flexible as possible, according to the decisions of local people and local authorities. I hope that the Government and local authorities will not take a commitment to a combined authority lightly and simply walk away if decisions start to go against them or the political leadership of a local authority changes.

Julian Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is exactly what City of York council did last year? It walked away from the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding economic partnership. That example of walking away from a commitment that it had made was pretty shocking.

John Healey: I am not entirely convinced that the two situations are comparable. We are talking today about a legislative commitment that binds authorities into exercising statutory powers. Participation in a local enterprise partnership is of a totally different order. I do not know the details of the judgment that City of York Council took about that LEP’s performance and its contribution to the jobs and wealth of people in the city—it would have to explain that.
	I am pleased to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who is a very good friend. He made the important point that the change is a good first step, with the potential for our areas—South Yorkshire in my case, Merseyside in his—to go a great deal further, as long as the Government are prepared to back them to do so and to devolve essential powers and funding decisions that are better taken at that level. I will return to that point.
	I also agree with my right hon. Friend that the South Yorkshire combined authority could and should be called that. Instead, we are asked to approve the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield combined authority. I hope that the Minister will prove as flexible about name changes as he has promised to be about membership changes.

Brandon Lewis: indicated assent.

John Healey: The Minister nods, so I will take that as a good sign. Perhaps the new combined authorities will make a forceful case for a name that properly reflects not just the geography but the identity of the area, which is what really counts for the people for whom the new combined authority will work.
	I am really pleased by the active involvement of the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) in the debate and by the arguments that they have made. That signifies to me that there is a good Conservative case, and good Conservative support, for the innovation and wealth creation potential of areas outside London and the south-east. The hon. Member for York Outer reminded us of the great contribution that many of our northern and midlands cities have made in the past and can make again. I hope that both hon. Members have made strong representations to the Chancellor on that point, and that tomorrow he will provide significant policy freedoms and funding that could give life to the arguments that they have made. I am not holding my breath, but I will be delighted if they have succeeded in arguing that case with the Chancellor.
	The Minister opened the debate with the obligatory page of the Chancellor’s spin sheet. The platitudes about racing economic recovery simply do not ring true in most areas of South Yorkshire. The recovery has not reached Rotherham or Barnsley. People there feel, and are, worse off under the current Government, because incomes have not kept pace with the cost of living—in fact, they have fallen behind it. The average family in my area are at least £2,000 worse off than when the Government came into power. In a year’s time, when the Government leave power, families face the prospect of being worse off at the end of a Government’s five-year period than they were at the beginning of it, for the first time.
	I do not wish to make any more political points because this is an important debate and there is a broad measure of support for what the Government are proposing. On behalf of the four South Yorkshire local authorities, I pay tribute to the Minister’s decision to lay these orders before the House, and to his very able civil servants who have worked with our authorities to frame these provisions. Certainly from my point of view, and I think that of other Labour Members, he will receive support.
	Authorities and areas such as Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster in South Yorkshire have a long history of working together well over the years, which reflects our natural economic geography and sense of identity in the wider county. The introduction of local enterprise partnerships, underpowered as they are, have reinforced that joint working over the past couple of years, and in some respects the combined authority will help to hardwire the private and public partnership working that we have established in South Yorkshire.
	This is legislation for what has been collaboration by consent up to this point, and in future joint decision making will be more formal, have a legislative underpinning, and be part of a statutory entity. Those words do not mean much outside Whitehall, but I say to the Minister, and to the Minister of State, who has left his place, that I am prepared to take at face value the assertions given to the House that both Ministers are willing to consider and argue the case for greater devolution of powers, funding and responsibilities from central Government.
	The problem, however, is that their arguments have not cut enough ice with colleagues in the Government and they have not made enough headway. Establishing the combined authorities removes one of the alibis that the Minister will often have found in Whitehall against devolution: “But Minister, we don’t know with any certainty who we’re devolving to.” Now that argument, that pretext for hanging on to powers at the centre, is gone. A statutory body, properly constituted with a governance arrangement and a degree of democratic accountability will, I hope, reinforce the Minister’s hand in the final 12 to 14 months that he and his Government have in office.
	I hope that this will be not just the first example of bringing strategic economic development powers under the new combined authorities, working alongside LEPs, or of the powers and responsibilities of the current integrated transport authorities in our areas, but the start of a much more significant programme of devolution from the centre to our new combined authorities.
	I make a plea for two steps for the Minister and his colleagues to argue with the Treasury. Will he argue to ensure that the combined authorities will, like the local authorities that constitute their membership, be able to reclaim VAT? That will make them more efficient with the use of public money, and reinforce their capacity to make a real economic difference to our area. Secondly, will he make the case, and will the Government concede for the new combined authorities the same borrowing powers that integrated transport authorities and local authorities now have—in other words, the well-established prudential regime, which is proven since the mid-2000s to have worked well for local government? Will he allow the combined authorities to borrow in order to invest beyond simply the transport field? I offer those remarks
	to the Minister perhaps as a very late Budget representation for Budget 2014. If I am too late for that, however, may I offer them as the first Budget representation for Budget 2015?

Brandon Lewis: The shadow Minister and other Labour Members commented on the Government’s ability to localise, but I struggle to listen to them on devolution and localisation. As a council leader under the previous Labour Government, I did not see very much devolution or localisation and neither did other council leaders. I gently point out that after 13 years in government the number of combined authorities the Labour Government put in place was zero, while this Government have managed to introduce them in just three years.
	We have taken a lead on combined authorities in a short time and I am glad that we have the support of Opposition Members. I remind them, particularly the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), that the Localism Act 2011 saw a massive change in how we devolve powers to local communities, not just to local government. It is probably a large part of why the well-respected Richard Leese said that there had been more devolution in three years of this coalition Government than in 13 years under Labour. Labour Members might want to bear that in mind before trying to give us lessons on how to localise.
	On a more positive note, we have had an interesting debate on what will be—if Parliament approves the orders and it is clear from what has been said that the House will support them—an important development in each of the three areas under consideration. It is an important development for the economic success of the three major conurbations, centred on the cities of Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield. It is a development that epitomises localism, being in each area founded on, and driven by, the initiative of the councils and their partners. The combined authorities will have a central role in taking forward the city deals in each of these areas. The combined authorities will be able to provide stable, efficient and accountable governance to drive forward the projects and investment needed to deliver the outcomes envisaged in those city deals. Likewise, the combined authorities will be able to provide the governance needed for any future growth deals, with resources being provided from the local growth fund.
	Important points were raised by hon. Members from all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Corby raised a number of issues, not least on the local government finance settlement. He and I have had that debate on a number occasions and I can only remind him that the settlement made it clear that authorities with the highest demand for services continue to receive substantially more funding than others and have higher spending power.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how the counties and districts will operate in South Yorkshire. The Sheffield city region local enterprise partnership has a strong board, and the intention is for it to work alongside the combined authority. We also understand now that the chief executives of the counties and constituent authorities have come together in agreement with the councils to have clear structures for joint working, and that gives us confidence.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly raised, as he has before, the question of why York cannot now be part of the order for West Yorkshire. I am happy to deal with that point. The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 requires that combined authorities consist of whole local authority areas that share the same boundaries. We are committed to reviewing the legislation as soon as possible and we will consult on how to change it and facilitate that change at the earliest opportunity. We intend to consult in the next few weeks.
	The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) raised the question of VAT. I am pleased to be able to give them some reassurance. I confirm that the Government will open a consultation shortly on a proposal to add Greater Manchester and the combined authorities to the existing VAT refund scheme for local authorities, and to do that through secondary legislation.

John Healey: That is an extremely welcome statement, which will be warmly welcomed in Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield. Will he give the House an indication of the value of that move for the funding available to the combined authorities?

Brandon Lewis: Not at this stage, but I will happily look into it and write to the right hon. Gentleman.
	My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) highlighted concern that York could walk away from North Yorkshire. As the Secretary of State and I said to him when we discussed this matter recently, we appreciate the circumstances. It will be important for York to continue to maintain a constructive partnership with North Yorkshire while it pursues its ambition for calibration with the neighbouring West Yorkshire councils, its natural economic partners. I understand that York is committed to that. However, my hon. Friend also raised the interesting possibility of a combined authority of a different construction. No doubt he will be putting forward that proposal soon.

Julian Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that North Yorkshire does not lose out. May I urge him also to ensure that this attempt by York is transparent and open for consultation, and is not a gerrymandering deal as well as a city deal?

Brandon Lewis: I can assure my hon. Friend of that. There will be a full process including consultation and, as has happened today, the input of Members here in the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer also asked whether the non-constituent authorities would have to contribute to the costs of the combined authorities. I can tell him that they are not required to do that. They will have to contribute only if and when they become constituent members. Funding will be based on an agreement between the constituent authorities themselves and I stress the word “constituent”—or on a default agreement relating to the populations of the constituent authorities.
	The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) asked about the name of his combined authority. The names of the authorities have been agreed on and
	consented to by all the statutory consultees, but let me say in response to an issue that others have also raised that this is localism at its absolute purest. The authorities can choose whatever name they want, work under that name, brand it and “logo” it, and I wish them all the luck in the world.

George Howarth: I think it would be more accurate to say that the authorities agreed to the new name reluctantly on the understanding that they would never have to use it, which rather makes my point. What was the point of the Secretary of State’s intervening in the first place?

Brandon Lewis: Coming up with a name on which every member of every combined authority agrees to be the one and only name—and a legal name—is not always that straightforward. Under the powers that we have introduced, combined authorities can now choose the brand name that they want to use, whatever it may be, and use it strongly and effectively to represent themselves.

George Howarth: I do not want to labour the point, but the fact is that all the authorities had previously agreed to the name “Liverpool city region”. It was only because the Secretary of State intervened that they eventually decided to give in rather than prolong things, by calling it what they had decided rather than what he had decided.

Brandon Lewis: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that we have given authorities the power to do what they like, to brand their names, and to use them as they wish. I am sure that they will do so very successfully. I also noted what he said about what he thinks will be the future development of the process and the establishment of a non-elected mayor for the entire area. That touches on a point that he made about this being a first step for local authorities. I am happy to state clearly from the Dispatch Box that I agree that local government is evolving and changing, as it always does over time. That is one of the strengths and beauties of the way in which local government in our country works. I have no doubt that it will evolve and change further in many other ways, and the right hon. Gentleman has described one potential change in his own area.
	The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) mentioned seaside towns, and I share the experience that he described. He was right to point out that such towns felt left behind in the past, which is one of the reasons for the coalition Government’s introduction of the coastal communities fund. I was delighted to announce the round 2 funding a couple of weeks ago, along with the opening of round 3, which will make much more money available to help seaside towns with their economic regeneration. New criteria will make it easier for them to grow their economic futures while protecting their coastlines from erosion.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised an issue related to governance. I will give him more details in writing, but I can tell him that each constituent council will appoint at least one of its elected members to be a member of the combined authority. As I said earlier, we intend them also to have non-voting members and members representing minority parties.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the potential for dominance by the big players. The orders have specified the voting arrangements based on the scheme developed by the councils concerned and each member does have one vote and no member has a casting vote. That is why it is important that the scrutiny is run efficiently and effectively.
	The hon. Gentleman also touched on West Lancashire. In response to the Government’s consultation, West Lancashire stated its support for the combined authority because of the expected improvements in transport and economic growth.
	The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, in asking about VAT, also mentioned the powers to borrow. The combined authorities’ borrowing powers are limited to their transport function. They will inherit the levy-raising power of the integrated transport authority, hence the revenue-raising power exists only in relation to transport. The right hon. Gentleman also commented on my opening remarks.

John Healey: The Minister is being generous in giving way and in responding to some of the arguments today. He is stating the obvious fact that the borrowing powers in relation to transport derive from the levy-raising powers of the integrated transport authority that the functions will be taken from. However, what is the principled case that these properly constituted, legally established combined authorities should not be able to borrow within the general prudential borrowing regime for local government?

Brandon Lewis: We believe the bodies that have the powers to raise revenue, or precepting bodies, should have directly elected members and be directly answerable to the electorate, and that is not possible for combined authorities. Indeed, to make it possible would require changes to primary legislation. However, I can see that the right hon. Gentleman may want to take up this issue, but, as I said earlier—and I know the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) takes the same view—if areas have ideas on how they want to move forward and what they want to develop, they can make the case. We will certainly give them the airtime to look at that, but I would say there is a concern around them and the point about elected accountability.
	I understand why the right hon. Gentleman referred to my opening remarks about economic prosperity and the desire to see more of it in parts of the country. I am sure he will want to join me in apologising to the people of his area for the problems they have faced over the last few years as a direct result of the economic mess left by the last Labour Government.

John Healey: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is going to agree with me now—

John Healey: On the contrary.

Brandon Lewis: But I may be disappointed.

John Healey: In 2007 people in my area of Barnsley and Rotherham had seen 10 years of stable economic growth, unemployment fall, employment rise, and inflation and interest rates at a stable level. Then the global financial crisis hit, and this country faced enormous economic problems, but I am proud to say the Labour Government played a part in co-ordinating the international response that dealt with that.

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I do not entirely agree with his description. He seems to forget that from 2007 to 2010 not only was there the issue with the banks, but that since 2010 this Government have been having to deal with the bad economic decisions of the previous Government. We are having to deal with the fact that they spent money the country simply did not have. Nobody should be doing that; certainly we know from our own credit card bills that that is not a good way to move forward. This coalition Government are dealing with that mess and are making the difficult decisions required to develop a good long-term economic plan. The outcomes of that are now starting to be seen, with growth coming back while interest rates are being held down and with more people in work and unemployment falling. That is a good thing for our country and I commend that to the House in the same way that I will commend these combined authority orders.
	Establishing these combined authorities is what the areas themselves want to see. They want them because of their commitment to delivering growth and prosperity for their areas and this Government have given them the power to do that. It is a priority that should be at the heart of everything that councils across our country are working to do. It is a commitment that business and other partners in each of these areas rightly share. It is also a commitment this coalition Government share, as demonstrated through the city deals we have agreed with these areas and others. Let us be clear about the importance of this: the first wave of deals alone is expected to create 175,000 jobs and 37,000 new apprentices —that is in addition to the almost 1.5 million new jobs in the private sector under this Government. It is a commitment I am confident this House shares, and I commend the orders to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on the three remaining motions together.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
	That the draft Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
	That the draft West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.—(Brandon Lewis.)

Criminal Procedural Rights (Opt-in Decision)

[Relevant document: The Thirty-Second Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xxix.]

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings, No. 17633/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, No. 17642/13, a Commission Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, and No. 17635/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings; and agrees with the Government that the UK should not exercise the opt-in to these measures.
	I am pleased that the European Scrutiny Committee has called this debate, as these potentially important matters are of interest to Parliament and the public. The three proposals to be considered today all flow from the Stockholm work programme agreed in 2010, and two of them flow directly from the criminal procedural rights road map agreed in 2009 and later confirmed in the Stockholm programme. We have been presented with three directives, which appeared at the same time and which share a common date of 19 March for a decision on whether the UK will opt in. The decisions are individual and specific to each proposal.
	I can tell the House that we have considered each proposal carefully. In line with the coalition agreement, we have looked at the potential benefits and disadvantages of UK participation to the national interest on a case-by-case basis. We asked ourselves whether it is in our national interest to be bound by any or all of the proposals, and we have concluded that it is not. The motion is therefore clear that we are minded not to opt in to any of the proposals, and I of course look forward to hearing the views of the House this afternoon.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his absolutely right decision, but can he confirm that it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government not to opt in at any stage?

Chris Grayling: I was going to make reference to that. I can confirm that we have agreed that we will not participate in the first and third item at any stage. We have agreed across the coalition that we will take a look at the second item in the discussions that take place. We will participate in the negotiations, but I say to the House this afternoon that I do not expect, at the end of that process, any change to the decision that we are proposing, which I hope the House will endorse this afternoon.
	I have also given our officials permission to take part as observers in the negotiations on the other two measures, because, naturally, I am keen to ensure that our European partners take sensible steps, too. It is right and proper that we should be aware of what takes place, but I could not conceive of a situation where we could consider
	taking part in the presumption of innocence and the legal aid matters. Therefore, it is not our intention at any stage to participate.
	I was glad to see that the European Scrutiny Committee has also concluded that the UK should not opt in to the proposals, so we are of one mind on them. It is also worth highlighting that we are considering these three measures alone today, and that the Government continue to engage with the Commission on wider 2014 measures. I will briefly discuss the possible pros and cons of each proposal, as it is important that the House understands the basis for our decisions and the proposal we are putting to it this afternoon. First, I wish to make a general point relevant to each of the proposals. Each of them would of course apply to all criminal cases in the UK. None is restricted to cross-border cases. That means that if we accept any of the proposals, we also effectively agree that, henceforth, the relevant matters of internal procedural law will be determined at an EU level rather than here. In addition, the highest court overseeing the implementation and interpretation of the rules would thereafter be the European Court of Justice and not any UK court. That is, of course, true of all EU laws, but it is important to bear that in mind as we consider the proposals.
	I remind the House that the agreement we reached on the 2014 measures is that we do not believe that Britain should be part of a European justice system. We do not believe in the harmonisation of court and legal procedure, and our decisions reflect that view. I do not agree with those who wish to create such a unified system. Other member states are free to do so if they choose, but we have decided that this country should not be part of such an approach.

Alan Beith: The process that my right hon. Friend has described raises another problem, and I wonder whether he shares my view on it or approaches it from a different perspective. The proposals open up the possibility of conflicting decisions between the European Union system and the European convention on human rights on a number of issues. What happens in Britain has passed the test of the ECHR, but it would not necessarily pass the tests set in the proposals.

Chris Grayling: That is a very valid point, and my right hon. Friend is right to raise it. As he knows, we have different perspectives on the European Court of Human Rights, but he has highlighted one of the incongruities that will exist if we simply hand over jurisdiction in such crucial areas to the European Court of Justice, because there are some clear contradictions between European measures and those set out in the convention. Whatever our different perspectives in the coalition, we share that view of the problems that may arise from such Europeanisation of law.

William Cash: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s concluding remarks to the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The difference between the ECHR and the European Court is that according to section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, when a decision has been taken under that section, it is binding on us. Our Supreme Court cannot change that law, and there is no opportunity to appeal. That raises the whole question of who governs the United Kingdom in that area.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend highlights an area about which I am concerned, and on which there are perhaps disagreements within the coalition. Although there are democratic checks on the court system in this country—if Parliament does not agree with a Supreme Court ruling, it has the option of changing the law accordingly—the same is not true of international courts.
	We have a lively discussion in the coalition about our future relationship with the ECHR, but if we start to hand over key elements of the working of our justice system to the ECJ, there is a real danger that in an attempt to harmonise, we will lose some of the things that make our system strong. There is no doubt in my mind that English, Scottish and Northern Irish law are highly regarded around the world, and I would not want to see them internationalised. If that happened, the distinctive features that make London, Edinburgh and Belfast attractive legal centres might be less pronounced than they are today.

Geraint Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a case for minimum standards for the treatment of child defendants, and for people to have the right to appear in court and to be considered innocent until proven guilty? What is wrong with that? Why should other people not share those values?

Chris Grayling: In some respects, the hon. Gentleman is right, and that is what we do in this country. The question is whether he believes we should hand over future decision making about our judicial process and court process to an international court over which we have no control. He and his party clearly think that we should. I do not, and that is one of the things that divide us.

Douglas Carswell: I applaud my right hon. Friend’s wise and sensible decision, and I am particularly pleased to hear him say that the national interest is paramount in the consideration of such matters. I note his decision, and I say, “Very well done.” Can he do more to ensure that some of his ministerial colleagues are as wise and sensible when considering other opt-ins to ensure that this outbreak of sensible decision making is consistent across the board?

Chris Grayling: I will do my best.
	Let me touch briefly on the three measures. The first relates to the presumption of innocence. The proposal does not flow directly from the road map; it stems from the invitation in the Stockholm work programme for the Commission to consider whether issues not explicitly included in the road map—such as the presumption of innocence—might have a bearing on the mutual trust between member states.
	It is very much a matter of regret to me that, in response to an invitation to consider that matter, the Commission concluded that legislative action was necessary. Even if it had concluded that something had to be done—that is a matter for debate—there are alternatives to new legislation or common EU rules. I say this as there seems to be very little evidence of need for the proposal or for common EU rules in this area. That point seems to be acknowledged in the Commission’s own impact assessment, which notes that quantifiable evidence of any problem is scant. In the light of that, I wonder why it has still proposed common rules.
	This has been a matter of particular interest to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, in the context of the proposal’s compliance with the subsidiarity principle. I note that the Committee issued a reasoned opinion on the matter, and it is a shame that it did not manage to secure support from other Parliaments in doing so. I want to see the Commission paying a little more attention to the yellow card system than it has been doing recently.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend will recall that, on the question of the public prosecutor, the threshold was crossed but, even then, the European Commission decided that it would go ahead. Does he not regard that as an extraordinary situation? Does he agree that the yellow card system has been severely vitiated as a result?

Chris Grayling: I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council at which this issue was discussed, and I have to say that there was extensive disquiet among member states. If the Commission wishes to be credible, it cannot simply ignore the system that was put in place by the Lisbon treaty in the way that it did in that particular case.
	Let me turn to the second item on the list, which is the proposal on child defendants. By any assessment, I consider the UK arrangements for dealing with and helping children who become engaged with the law enforcement agencies and with criminal proceedings to be very good. There is a raft of specific provisions in place in the UK to assist children in those situations, and we wholeheartedly support the principle that children in those circumstances need to be treated differently from adults in some respects, given their particular vulnerabilities.
	Beyond the general principle behind the proposal, however, and given that the UK’s current arrangements provide a significant degree of protection as good as that available anywhere else, the proposal presents significant difficulties. First, the definition of a child in the proposal is set at those under 18 years of age. In England and Wales, the procedural protections provided to suspects and defendants based on their age are varied to reflect the specific circumstances of their case. Article 1 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—to which the UK is a signatory, and to which the coalition Government undertook to give due consideration when making new policies and legislation—contains the same definition. In the context of the courts, prisons and the probation service, those under 18 years of age are treated as children and young people. However, there is a different approach for when the police deal with 17-year-olds under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when, for practical reasons, 17-year-olds suspected of committing an offence are for some purposes treated as adults. Clearly, that would be an issue in regard to these proposals as well. The position in Scotland stands in even clearer contrast to the proposal, as it tends to treat younger people—that is, those aged 16 and above—as adults for these and other purposes.

Keith Vaz: rose—

Chris Grayling: I give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

Keith Vaz: I agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said this evening. Does he know whether we have been able to persuade any of our EU partners to adopt the very sensible practices and procedures that we have adopted in respect of children?

Chris Grayling: At the moment, this is in the early stages. One reason that we agreed to participate in the negotiations—albeit expressing up front our intention not to opt in—was to allow precisely that kind of discussion to take place. I have nothing to be ashamed of in relation to the way we manage our affairs in this country, although I understand that improvements might be needed elsewhere. My sole concern is that our rules should not be subject to the jurisdiction of an international court over which we hold no sway.

James Clappison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am sorry that I missed the very beginning of his speech. I warmly welcome the course that he has taken today. Is not the point that these matters are part of our arrangements in this country—in England and in Scotland—and should be decided here in this Parliament, subject to debate, representations from our constituents and election, and not by the European Union?

Chris Grayling: That is the point. We have 800 years of legal tradition in this country. It has evolved in a number of different ways and is subject to change and review in both the courts and our Parliament. I do not really feel that we need to bring a third body into that relationship. To my mind keeping the European Court of Justice at arm’s length over these matters is absolutely where we need to be.

Geraint Davies: On that point and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—with which I do not agree, incidentally—the age of criminal responsibility in Britain for children is 10, which is far younger than elsewhere in Europe. Children are required to go to a full criminal court. Surely there is something to be learned from others, or are we too arrogant to listen?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman and I are on different sides of the House. When we disagree on different issues we can debate them in this House. If it is his view that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is too low, it is perfectly reasonable to articulate that in this House, to bring forward measures that could change that, and for us to debate it. My issue is that that is a decision for this Parliament and not for elsewhere, which is why I am taking the view I am this afternoon.
	It is also worth saying that the proposal seeks to establish that any deprivation of a child’s liberty must be as a matter of “last resort”. The notion that children should not be detained unless necessary causes little difficulty in the UK, but it is obvious that it introduces a different test from that which currently applies in England and Wales in which children are deprived of their liberty if it is considered necessary—during a police investigation or on remand awaiting trial. That would also have to be subject to reconsideration if we were to opt into this measure and could lead to significant changes, which should be a matter for this Parliament and not for anyone else.
	Given that the UK has one of the most comprehensive and generous legal aid regimes in the world, it will perhaps not surprise this House that our analysis suggests that our current practice—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—means that we are already compliant with the majority of the provisions of the proposed directive. We might, therefore, argue that as it does not ask much change of us, it would be fine to opt into it. However, it does require some change. It requires changes to procedures around the entitlement of somebody who is subject to a European arrest warrant to receive legal advice both in the country of arrest and the country that is seeking arrest. That would have small financial cost for us, but it is, none the less, a financial change that would be imposed on us. It would not be a priority area for us to increase legal aid spending at a time when the legal aid budget is, for necessary reasons, under enormous pressure.
	It is not necessary or appropriate for our legal aid system to come under international rules. The level and nature of spend should be subject to a decision in this House. It should be a matter for Parliament. I do not think that we should pass over ultimate jurisdiction over our legal aid rules to the European Court of Justice, which is why I have said clearly that I cannot conceive of a situation in which we would wish to opt into this. I am therefore not prepared at this stage to leave that door open. It is not what this Parliament or this country want. I will not try to pretend otherwise. Let us be clear and up front and say that this is not something of which we wish to be a part.

Geraint Davies: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm the estimated costs of that measure in terms of added legal aid costs. My understanding is that it is just £200,000, compared with his budget of £7.5 billion. It is not significant, so he is talking about the principle rather than the money.

Chris Grayling: I just said that it was not a large amount. It is a question of principle. Do we want decisions about legal aid entitlement to be taken in this Parliament by Government, scrutinised by the Select Committees of the House and by Parliament itself, or do we want to subject ourselves to an uncertain international jurisdiction that may, at a later date, decide that we have to do things in a wholly different way from the customs and practices in this country, often with a cost that is simply not budgeted for. My view is that we do not want that, and I propose that we do not accept that.
	I have set out here in both general and specific terms why the proposals present difficulties in the UK, why, in their current shape, we could not support them and why we conclude that we should not opt into any of them. There is, of course, a question about negotiability, and these texts are not final. They may be open to changes in discussions in Brussels, which may improve them, but our assessment at this stage must be taken on the basis of the presented text; we have no other basis. It is of course possible that the proposed directive will change for the better in negotiation, but it is also possible that it could change in a way that make things even more problematical. We do not know for sure. We face a new Commission and a new Parliament in the summer. The Lisbon treaty provides co-decision making to the European Parliament. Matters relating to these directives can be amended in that Parliament and could theoretically impose costs on us that are absolutely not budgeted for.
	It seems to me that the scale of our difficulties with the current proposals on the presumption of innocence and legal aid are such that it is difficult to foresee any realistic prospect of negotiating them to a conclusion that the UK could now accept. They are simply too far away from acceptability. Although we will continue to monitor the forthcoming negotiations, we will be clear about our position at the outset. I hope that that clarity will be useful to the House and that the House will support it this afternoon.
	The proposals on child defendants also present significant difficulties and I do not underestimate them. I think it is pretty unlikely that we would be able to secure changes that would make them acceptable or better. That is why we are recommending this afternoon that we should also indicate that we will not opt in. I have instructed officials that they should participate in the negotiation to see whether changes made at a later date would be advantageous to this country. I am not convinced that that will happen, but I have left it open as a possibility. That was what was agreed across the Government.
	I will ask my officials to work closely with interested Departments, including the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to ensure that the message is communicated effectively to our EU partners and is factored into wider engagements on matters such as the 2014 decision. My view is that the proposal I am laying before the House this afternoon is in the national interest. I have considered carefully the different measures and I am very clear that it is not right for the UK to opt into them, but it is important that this House has its say. I hope that the House will endorse that approach and that everyone in the Chamber will feel that it is right to accept our proposals and support the motion.

Andy Slaughter: I can be fairly brief in addressing these three draft directives. That is not to say that they are unimportant both in themselves and in the context of European legislation, but the Government’s approach to them has been so casual and tardy that the ground has not been laid for sensible debate. I pray in aid the article in tonight’s Evening Standard entitled “EU law change ‘could help drivers escape speed fines’, says Chris Grayling”. That is how the Lord Chancellor sums up these three important draft directives for the public at large. If one was cynical, it would be tempting to assume that when the Secretary of State hears that European legislation is to be debated he first ignores it and then decides to oppose it not because of its merits but because it is European.
	It is good to see the Secretary of State proposing the motion. The previous Lord Chancellor used to leave it to his junior Ministers; I wonder why? The current Lord Chancellor’s appearances in the House are rare compared with those in the Evening Standard, but I think that he has come for the approbation of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others rather than to give a reasoned opinion on the matter in hand. His opening speech has sadly confirmed that. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is too wise a man to play the Secretary of State’s game, as the Committee’s reports in the bundle make clear.
	Let me first set out the Opposition’s position on the draft directives and then have a little moan about how they have come before us. The presumption of innocence
	is speedily dealt with. We debated it in the Chamber a month ago and my opinion has not changed since then. I gave two reasons why we would agree with the Government and not support the opt-in. They were:
	“First, it is not the difference in standards or the falling short per se that provokes the draft directive, but the alleged effect that has on confidence in the judicial systems in states that are failing. There is anecdotal evidence to support that; indeed, much of the debate about the European arrest warrant focused on worries about the criminal justice system in the extraditing state. However, as the Commission itself concedes, there is ‘limited statistical quantifiable evidence’, and that is not a good basis for such a radical restructuring of European criminal law”—
	and—
	“Radical though the draft directive may be—this is the second problem—it goes beyond what the ECHR demands.”
	That is the point made by the Committee Chairman. I went on:
	“For example, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent legislation, it is permitted in English criminal courts to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. The burden of proof does not always lie on the prosecution, and the right to representation, interpretation and translation varies at different stages of the criminal process. I do not seek to defend the law in its current form by saying that, but I do say that the directive is not the means by which to open a wholesale review of those and other provisions of the criminal law.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 671.]
	Interestingly, in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, we are about to debate further provisions that would allow for more speedy and, the Government would say, effective trial of cases in absence on minor offences. That partly organic and partly operational process of the courts is a good example of why it is wrong that we adopt that particular draft directive.
	The two other draft directives are more compelling. They go to the practice and procedure in the law, rather than its fundamentals. They sit more comfortably with the three measures previously debated and decided on by the Government.

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will be aware that we already practise the assumption of innocence unless proven guilty and people’s right to be present in court. Is it not part of this partnership to promote best practice to others, rather than to abstain completely in the way the Government have, in particular by not providing the data to the EU Commission on the effectiveness of the justice system? We are the only country not to do that. It is ridiculous.

Andy Slaughter: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Where that is possible we should do it, and I will refer to a draft directive where we took exactly that line. I simply say in relation to the draft directive on the presumption of innocence that it was proving too difficult to accommodate the principally Roman law system of the other EU countries with our developed system of common law. It was just impossible. However, it does not stop us advocating within the EU on those matters, which we do very well; I just do not think that they are entirely compatible.
	The Government opted in to the directives on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and on the right to information in criminal proceedings. I do not know whether that was because they were prior to regime change at the MOJ—a regime
	change so dramatic it makes the regime change in Crimea look positively evolutionary by comparison. We disagreed with the Government on the directive on the right to access a lawyer in criminal and European arrest warrant proceedings and voted against them because their arguments were poorly structured and articulated.
	I have re-read the debate from 7 September 2011 and I am more than persuaded by the arguments that I put forward on that occasion, even though it did put me at odds with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, something that I am loth to do, given his reservoir of knowledge on these matters. The Law SocietyGazette, an esteemed publication, reported me as saying that
	“the government’s reasons for opting out of that directive were ‘at best unconvincing and at worst spurious’.”
	It went on:
	“He said the directive’s requirements are ‘broadly in line’ with current UK legislation and by not opting into it the government would ‘appear to be throwing away an advantage to British citizens’. Opting out at this stage, he said would ‘fatally’ undermine the UK’s authority and leverage during the negotiations. He added”–
	presciently—
	“‘it looks as though the government are looking for reasons to opt out at this stage’”—
	something that has now become commonplace.
	I mention that first, because I think that that directive had more in common with the other two draft directives that we have before us today, and secondly, because we do not resile from voting against the Government when we think that it is appropriate. Interestingly, one of the reasons for not opting in to the draft directive on safeguarding children’s rights is because part of that refers back to the directive on access to a lawyer. We clearly do not adopt that point. There are good reasons for supporting the draft directive on children’s rights, even on the Government’s case, as there are for favouring the right to an appropriate level of legal aid across the EU. The difficulty with supporting those draft directives is that the position is still far from clear.

James Clappison: The House will have been relieved to hear that the hon. Gentleman is persuaded by his own arguments—he is at least clear about that. Can he just tell us, in short, whether his position is that we should opt in to all these measures, or indeed any of them?

Andy Slaughter: That is the purpose of this speech, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. In relation to the draft directives on children’s rights and legal aid, the insurmountable hurdles that apply to the presumption of innocence directive do not apply. The difficulty we have tonight relates to some important questions, such as what will the cost be; what are the implications for UK legislation, meaning what would have to change; how far are they necessary harmonising measures; and how far do they fall into the same trap as the presumption of innocence draft directive, meaning how far do they exhort us to do something, rather than actually harmonising. It is quite difficult to say.
	Let me explain what I mean. If we look at the very belated letter from the Government on the cost of these measures, we see that, in relation to the draft directive on safeguarding children’s rights, it is estimated that
	transporting 17-year-olds after being charged to local authority accommodation for overnight detention would cost £2.1 million. A breakdown of that figure shows that an estimated additional 5,200 places in local authority accommodation would be required each year in England and Wales, at a cost of approximately £395 a day for each 17-year-old suspect. With all due respect to the Lord Chancellor, those figures look as though they have been drawn up on the back of a fag packet. They were dreamt up at the last minute because the Committee was quite rightly pressing the Department to come up with a decision and some reason for it.
	With regard to legal aid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed out, we are told that the net monetised discounted cost impact of the article over a 10-year appraisal period, if we opt in to the directive, is estimated to be between £1.5 million and £5 million, with a main estimate of around £2 million. That would equate to an undiscounted cost of approximately £200,000 per annum. Again, it looks as though—I think the Lord Chancellor effectively admitted this—we comply with those proposals. There would not be a great cost in opting in, but it is best to “big it up” and make it look worse than it is. I am afraid that I just do not trust what is in those documents.

Chris Grayling: My main concern about these measures, as I have said, is the fact that opting in to them would mean passing over jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his party thinks that it is appropriate for the European Court of Justice to have sway in areas such as legal aid? He seems to be saying that it is not a big deal. Does he accept that the European Court of Justice should not have sway, or does he think that it should?

Andy Slaughter: I do not accept the argument that everything that comes out of Brussels is necessarily evil or inimical to the interests of this country, which appears to be the bizarre position that the Lord Chancellor has painted himself into. Uncharacteristically, we will sit on our hands tonight in relation to two of the draft directives. To answer his question directly, I do not rule out any future opt-in, as of course the Government do not in relation to the directive on access to a lawyer, because I understand that their position is that they still might opt in. Even with the spin that he has put on it, I understand that for at least one of the draft directives there is a possibility that negotiations will lead to an opt-in. I welcome that pragmatic approach. It is a conservative approach, but it keeps the door open, rather than taking the radical approach that the Lord Chancellor would like to be seen to be taking.

Geraint Davies: Surely the point on legal aid is that this is to protect British citizens who might be wrongly accused and languishing in an unfit foreign prison, and to provide them with some legal support, at a total estimated cost of £200,000—a fraction of the value of the Home Secretary’s house.

Andy Slaughter: My hon. Friend makes a good point which is exactly the one I made in relation to access to a lawyer: it is primarily British citizens abroad who would benefit. Yes, there is a moral purpose in our trying to get other EU countries to adopt the high standards that we have in this country, but there is also a practical
	purpose in trying to ensure that when British citizens get into trouble abroad they get the best assistance that they can in those countries. That is why it is sensible, where possible—as in two but perhaps not in the third of these draft directives—at least to keep the door open.
	I wish that the Government would address these proposals seriously and not in a rhetorical and political way, and that they would respond to the Committee’s requests more timeously. The pertinent quote from the Committee is this:
	“We repeat again our disappointment at the poor quality of the Government’s”—
	explanatory memorandums—
	“on the three proposals forming the Commission’s procedural rights package, particularly in the light of the time taken to draft and deposit them.”
	I am afraid that this is becoming typical of the way in which the Ministry of Justice operates. It is to a low standard and it shows a certain degree of, if not contempt, then at least disregard for this House and its Committees. If the hon. Member for Stone cannot elicit discipline and compliance from the Secretary of State, then it is beyond me, but I feel that the debate is poorer for it.

Alan Beith: As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, the handling of this set of proposals has not been ideal, to put it mildly. The criticisms made by the European Scrutiny Committee have considerable weight. They also suggest that because of time constraints the Committee did not come to the Justice Committee for an opinion on proposals that fall pretty squarely within its remit. That would have been a much more desirable process to follow, and lessons ought to be learned from this.

William Cash: That process is exactly what we recommend in our report, which is currently awaiting the Government’s response. The right hon. Gentleman and I are in complete agreement about this. The more often it is possible, as in this case it was not, to go to one of the departmental Select Committees for its considered opinion, the better.

Alan Beith: Perhaps unusually, my hon. Friend and I are indeed at one on this issue. As Chairman of the Liaison Committee, I give every encouragement to Select Committees to be ready to respond when the European Scrutiny Committee draws attention to matters and seeks opinions on them. That is how the process should work, so that we make the maximum uses of the resources of expertise among Members and, indeed, House staff, that we have built up over recent years.
	Let me turn to some of the specific measures. On the presumption of innocence, the basis of the directive is that there might be significant difficulties in cross-border matters when identical standards have not been observed. However, no measurable evidence has been produced showing that cases under the European arrest warrant, for example, have frequently been obstructed over a lack of compliance with identical standards. Therefore, the whole basis on which the Commission is proceeding appears to be weak. The suggested measures would certainly adversely affect the UK provision that in certain circumstances inferences can be drawn from silence. The House has debated this at great length and
	with some care, and the courts have developed the operation of the system with some care. The caution administered to suspects reflects the fact that adverse inferences can be drawn from silence. These provisions would completely disrupt all those processes.
	The biggest danger is one that I mentioned earlier in an intervention—that processes that have satisfied tests under the European convention on human rights would not necessarily pass the test of this directive. We would therefore end up with two alternative sources of challenge to English criminal law, leaving open the possibility of passing one and failing the other. That would be an undesirable state of affairs. It would cause confusion and, indeed, forum shopping, whereby someone could obtain their preferred outcome.
	On the recommendation regarding legal aid and access to a lawyer, the jurisdiction both in England and Wales and in Scotland already satisfies the provision. My colleague and friend Sarah Ludford MEP has raised issues about the fact that, without the provision, there is no requirement for access to a lawyer in the state that issues the European arrest warrant. Problems can arise from that. Indeed, we have seen them in practice, whereby, had appropriate legal advice been available in the issuing state, an ill-founded arrest warrant might never have been issued in the first place. That factor needs to be considered in the future as the situation develops.
	On procedural safeguards for children, a number of problems would arise if we were to adopt the Commission’s provisions, including with regard to the difference between ages, which has already been referred to, and the mandatory representation issue. As the Lord Chancellor has himself indicated, the United Nations convention on human rights is the most accepted international baseline for the protection of children in legal proceedings. It would be better if we proceeded with these matters through advocacy of that convention and used all the resources available to the European Commission to advocate and support adherence to it, rather than create complications between member states over issues that are not central to the protection of children’s rights.
	I feel most strongly about an issue I addressed earlier. I do not want to see the role of the European convention on human rights as the primary European benchmark for human rights undermined by the creation of rival or alternative procedures. That is the danger we would run if we opted into the directives.

Keith Vaz: I will be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Liaison and Justice Committees. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and make a plea to the Government: I know it is difficult and complicated when dealing with the European Union, but it is essential to give this House and its Select Committees as much opportunity as possible to discuss European issues. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor has sought to do that and that he will take that plea away with him for future debates and discussions.
	I agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said today: it would be wrong for us to opt into any of the directives. I am particularly concerned about the third directive regarding legal aid and the European arrest warrant. As the House will know, the Home Affairs Committee is
	not a great fan of the European arrest warrant. We believe it is flawed and that it should be improved. There have been two judgments in the past week—I think the last one came from a court in Florence. The Government need to look again at the issue. I am sure it will be part of the Home Secretary’s discussions with her colleagues when they consider the entire justice and home affairs agenda and the question of opt-outs.
	In a rare example of unity among departmental Select Committees, three of them—the European Scrutiny, Justice and Home Affairs Committees—will agree, word for word, a joint report. Given the personalities on those various Committees—indeed, given the personalities of their Chairs—it will be quite an achievement to get almost 30 Members of this House to agree, word for word, on one document, but I think that is what we are about to do.
	I support what the Lord Chancellor has said. We need to be very cautious in dealing with jurisdictions, especially as far as the criminal law is concerned. In my view, our criminal law and procedures are different from what happens in the rest of the European Union. The Lord Chancellor is right to let his officials continue to be part of the ongoing discussions, not because we want to convince the 27 other countries to adopt what we do but because if anything comes out of the discussions that would benefit our system of justice we will certainly want to adopt it. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), the shadow Justice Minister. It is important to allow the Government to proceed on the basis that they are, and we should not oppose the motion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) quoted his speech in 2011, but it is his speech today that ought to go down in legend and song. Indeed, a sentence from it should be engraved in the deepest, finest granite and remembered by all of us who are interested in this debate, for he got absolutely to the heart of the subject when he said that the problem is trying to impose a system of Roman law on a common law system. That is at the heart of difficulty of imposing anything from the justice area on the United Kingdom. I rejoice at his saying it, because I hope that it shows a change from his attitude in 2011, when he was quite keen on opting into things. I did not agree with the vision of his previous speech, but this one was of the greatest quality, nobility and thoughtfulness, and I hope that it receives the praise it deserves.
	While in this mood of good will, I want to praise the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. In opting out of the three important directives—and, indeed, from the directive on right of access to a lawyer—he has avoided falling into the European trap. A number of directives are coming through in the justice and home affairs area, particularly on the European arrest warrant, which we have opted into, and the trap is very serious. Once we have opted into one thing, the next step is to say that because it is possible for a British citizen to be arrested by a foreign court and taken out of this country to be tried in a foreign place, losing the rights that would normally belong to a British subject, we need to
	impose other safeguards, but to impose such safeguards we need common rules to ensure that treatment is the same and that we have a pan-European view on the presumption of innocence.
	Such a view is needed because a British subject can be taken out of this country and taken abroad without any questioning in this country of whether their trial will be fair and proper. As that can be done under the European arrest warrant, we are led to say that it is only right and proper to have safeguards on the presumption of innocence. Exactly the same applies to the directive on procedural safeguards for children and, tying in with it, the right of access to a lawyer.
	Once there is common acceptance of other nations’ legal systems, we begin to say that they will work only if we have common safeguards, and once we begin to accept common safeguards we are effectively implementing a single criminal law across the whole of Europe. Once that has been done, legal aid must of course be unified across the European Union, because the person arrested needs to be able to afford the defence to which they are entitled, in accordance with laws laid down by the centre.
	This is not a matter of co-operating with European partners or of saying that there is a proper degree of justice in some European countries to which we are willing to extradite our citizens; it is a question of saying that we believe that ours is the only way to ensure proper justice in relation to some relatively undeveloped judicial systems. I am thinking of some countries that have joined the European Union more recently, particularly Croatia. In our debates about its application for membership of the European Union, we discussed the difficulties in its judiciary and police that were not solved before it joined. Despite the European Union’s requirement that they should be resolved, it was allowed to leave them to be improved after it joined. The same applies to Romania and Bulgaria. Once it has been accepted that such countries have the right to arrest British subjects, it inevitably follows that common standards of protection must be applied, with an overall court of appeal that can review it. Those are the stepping stones towards a single European criminal justice system.
	I praise the Lord Chancellor because he is now, I hope, taking the stepping stones in the other direction. We have had the block opt-out. We have restored to the United Kingdom rights over justice and home affairs. Unfortunately, we have not settled on which items we wish to opt back into. When that list comes forward, it is crucial that the things that we opt back into are not used as an excuse for bringing back the measures before us. I am thinking in particular of the European arrest warrant. As soon as that is in, the presumption of innocence must be a pan-European right, because nobody in this House would like a British subject to be deported to a foreign country and not have the presumption of innocence in his favour. The same is true of the other two measures that we are countering.
	I hope that in the battles that go on within Whitehall the Lord High Chancellor will know that he has the support not just of Conservative Members but of the bulk of the country in standing up for our common law system against, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith reminded us, a Roman law system that is not suitable for this nation.

Geraint Davies: I am sympathetic to the directives. The case for minimum standards across Europe has partially been made already. We live in a new Europe where people are mobile and in which people expect minimum standards. I understand that people are attached to their different judicial systems. There is a move in Wales to have a new, devolved judicial system. We could have lots of different and confusing judicial systems everywhere. There is a case for having our rights in Britain, but there is also a case for having minimum standards.
	We should take a sensible approach to this matter, rather than our instinct being that everything is wrong and that we should have a block opt-out. There is a cost to British citizens in that. In this case, it is that dangerous criminals will be roaming around Europe and evading detection through confusion and a lack of co-operation.
	The presumption of innocence and the right to be present are established in our law. I think that we should trumpet our best practice and encourage the adoption of minimum standards in countries that are entering the European Union. When British people go abroad, they expect those standards to prevail. Instead, we are saying, “We’re doing what we like and we don’t care what you’re doing. If you like it, you can take it, but it’s nothing to do with us.” We should be taking leadership, not being isolationist. It is the mentality of the UK Independence party and the Scottish National party to say, “We know best where we live.” That is certainly not the case.
	The children’s rights directive says that there is a right to information, a right to a lawyer and a right to medical examination. I mentioned in an intervention that the age of criminal responsibility in Britain is very low at the age of 10. That is one reason why we need to afford our children the maximum possible protection. They are much more vulnerable than their European counterparts because they can be criminally responsible at a much younger age. In my view, there should be video recording of interviews with children. There is a strong case for medical examination. We are virtually alone in preserving the defence of reasonable chastisement. The British continue the ritual of hitting their children—smacking and all the rest of it. Having medical examinations in such cases is important to protect our children. It is also right that children should have a right to maintain contact with parents and guardians. The lot of children in Britain is not a happy one in comparison with the rest of Europe. We have something to learn. It is wrong to take the arrogant approach that we do everything right and they have all got it wrong.
	When people are mobile within one community, they should be afforded the same rights. Hence my support for the legal aid proposal. We have talked about costs, and we know that legal aid carries massive costs, but the costs of protecting UK citizens abroad who may have been wrongly accused and left in jail are estimated at £200,000 a year. That is very little to afford people that right. However, in the name of anti-Europeanism we are saying, “Oh, we don’t want them interfering with what we’ve got.” We live in a common judicial market in some senses, and we can have minimum standards while retaining our own laws.
	The case is always made that if we agree to one step, the journey will continue endlessly and it will be the thin end of the wedge. I do not accept that. I believe that we should have a more mature and joined-up approach to debates such as this and take a selective view of the directives before us.

William Cash: I am extremely glad to be able to commend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice for his good decision on the directives. Inevitably, I am pleased that he has agreed with the European Scrutiny Committee. We spent a lot of time on the subject and gave our opinions, and I am glad that he has taken a similar view to ours. That has a consequence, of course, because although we hoped for a three-hour debate, there is no need for one when there is such a healthy degree of agreement between the parties, subject only to a few comments that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is my hon. Friend struck by the fact that when the Conservative party is Eurosceptic, it is united?

William Cash: I am indeed. I must be careful in what I say, but I simply note that when the Lisbon treaty was going through the House, I tabled 150 or so amendments, and there was complete unanimity between me and my close friends of the Euro-realist type, who supported those amendments, and the Opposition as a whole. The Conservative party was completely united right the way through the proceedings, for the first time since 1972. My hon. Friend is completely right, and there is a strong lesson there.
	Moving on to the substance of the matters in question, Lidington debates form part of a package of measures that were intended to
	“significantly strengthen Parliament’s oversight of EU Justice and Home Affairs matters and make the Government more accountable for the decisions it makes in the EU.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]
	That was what the Minister for Europe said in his written statement in January 2011, and it is important that we put it on the record. It is therefore disappointing—this is the only caveat to my otherwise considerable appreciation of what the Justice Secretary has done today—that, yet again, the Government were unable to give the Committee adequate notice of their recommended approach to the opt-in decision. That is a great pity, because we would not have needed to request a three-hour debate. There would not have been any need for it, subject to the agreement of the Opposition Front Benchers. I suggest that it would be helpful to understand what steps the Government intend to take to improve the process for holding Lidington debates and how they will ensure that their internal decision-making procedures do not continue to hamper the timely provision of information to Members of Parliament.
	I also wish to make a point about explanatory memorandums. In the Committee’s initial report, we stated that we were not satisfied with the quality of the memorandums relating to all three proposals that we are discussing today. We have said that before, but I wished to put it on record again. That is a matter of concern to us in relation to not just the Ministry of
	Justice but Departments in general. The explanatory memorandum is the most important information that can be made available—I do not mean when compared with everything else, but it is important in its own right. It is therefore extremely important, as we say in our European Scrutiny Committee report—for which we are awaiting the Government’s response—that explanatory memorandums are of sufficiently high quality, because that is the basis on which we hold the Government to account. When they explain in a memorandum the policy that underlies their decision, that should be the basis on which we are able to address the House, and be sure that the Government are answering the questions that we have put are and are coming up with a policy that is coherent and makes sense.
	The first of the three draft directives under consideration is that on the presumption of innocence. Its scope, which sets out certain rights that could be interpreted more widely than similar rights in the European Court of Human Rights by the Strasbourg Court, is a matter of great concern, and I am extremely grateful for the remarks of the Chair of the Justice Committee on that issue. I am also glad that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that at no stage will that measure be opted back into, and I will give one or two reasons by way of amplification.
	To take up the point made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, there would otherwise be different European Union and European Court of Human Rights procedural standards, which could cause legal uncertainty and confusion. That has now become an extremely topical question when applied to the judiciary. Members may have noted that, in their varying ways and without going into the detail, Lord Judge, Lord Sumption, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, have all made incredibly important statements, in the most measured terms, about their concerns over the manner in which the Strasbourg Court approaches some of its judgments. This is not the time to go into all the detail, but I strongly recommend that their respective speeches are read by those who read these proceedings.
	It is very important that people understand our concerns as members of the Conservative party—and indeed of other parties. Furthermore, some of the arguments that are presented as if we are just Eurosceptics who are out to be critical for the sake of it, are now increasingly supported—however discreetly—by some of the most eminent members of the judiciary in our analysis, which has taken a great deal of time and expertise to develop. It is important to remember that our arguments about the directive on the presumption of innocence are illustrative of the broader question of the methods of interpretation, for example, and the procedural standards in the two different Courts I have mentioned.
	On procedural standards, in a nutshell, those based on European Union law override national law. As I said in an intervention, that means that the ability to draw adverse inferences from the silence of the accused, although compliant with the European Court of Human Rights, would become unlawful under European law if the United Kingdom participated in the proposal. That is dangerous, given that we have spent the best part of 600 years in the development of a common law on such
	matters, some of which—for those who watched it—were well illustrated in last night’s programme on the Plantagenets and Henry II. It was an interesting programme, much of which dealt with how we developed our common law.
	The fact is that our courts have a system of appeal. The trouble with EU law in matters as important as the presumption of innocence, which is absolutely at the heart of Magna Carta and absolutely at the heart of our common law system, is that they would be eviscerated if the European Court of Justice were to apply the principles set out in this directive. The consequences would be for section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, passed all those years ago, to be binding on our judicial system, with no right of appeal once the European Court of Justice has adjudicated. That is different from the European Court of Human Rights, which we can override much more easily. I contend that we can put in a provision in an Act of Parliament to rectify that, by saying that, notwithstanding the European Communities Act, we will not accept this particular piece of legislation and thereby preserve our sovereignty. It is this kind of matter that is under discussion on the basis of the European Scrutiny Committee report, to which I referred earlier and on which we await the Government’s response. It is that important: there is no appeal from the European Court of Justice.
	I spent two days in Rome last week discussing the question of fundamental rights with some extremely eminent lawyers from throughout the European Union. The Prime Minister of Italy was there, as were a range of other people: Mr Prodi, who used to be the President of the European Commission, people from the Council of Europe and from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and so on. I have to say that there was a great deal of disquiet at the manner in which the European Court of Justice operates in all cases. There are questions about the qualifications of the judges, the methods of interpretation and the issue of process. I will not go into those in detail, other than to put it on the record that the reason why the Government are right, why the European Scrutiny Committee is right and why it is right for this House to agree not to opt in to these arrangements, is not just related to the question of the presumption of innocence in its own right, as important as that is. There is a much broader lesson to be learned on the manner in which the European Court functions and the whole question of the supremacy of Parliament. That lies at the heart of the Committee’s report and its recommendations that, if necessary, we should regain the right to veto legislation that we do not think is in the national interest, and to repeal unilaterally at Westminster legislation that is manifestly not in our national interest.
	I will now move on to the directive on procedural safeguards for children. Members may want to note that the Committee’s report said that it would be disadvantageous for the Government to opt in to this proposal, because the protection of a certain category of vulnerable defendant is best left to national policy and discretion. The differing approaches to the definition of the word “child” for the purposes of criminal procedural protection in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland demonstrate this point. There is a caveat to what the Lord Chancellor said in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset
	(Jacob Rees-Mogg). We want to be sure that this would never be opted into. I heard what he said: he clearly would not want it to be. I suspect there may be a bit of coalition politics behind this, so I will not go down that route now. I hope that that will be resolved and that we will effectively find that this directive does not apply at any time. The Government’s estimates of the costs of an opt-in decision to the police and criminal justice system, and the costs of changes in domestic legislation in the context of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, are also relevant considerations.
	Finally, Members should be aware that the Committee has expressed the view that the Government should not opt into the proposal in the directive on legal aid for two reasons. First, article 5(2) is premised on the directive on access to a lawyer, into which the United Kingdom has not yet opted. Secondly, the proposal would impose both a financial and a regulatory burden on the United Kingdom.
	My function in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee is to set out the parameters and, in some detail, the Committee’s reasons for reaching its conclusions. I cannot say how delighted we are that the Government agree with us. I think that everyone’s concerns have been dealt with, and I therefore have no more to say on the subject—at any rate, for the time being.

Chris Grayling: I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I am delighted to discover that there is a consensus across the House on the approach that we have recommended, although it seems not to include the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
	We heard some interesting contributions. Having quoted from comments that he made two years ago in the Law Society Gazette, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) compared regime change in the Ministry of Justice to regime change in Crimea, which may be considered to have been a slight exaggeration. He then agreed with us, although I note that he did not answer my question about whether he shared our concern about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the implications for our own legal position of signing up to measures of this kind, given that, if we do so, jurisdiction will pass from our courts to the ECJ.
	I apologise to the three Select Committees for the delays that have occurred, but they will understand that, in this day and age, there are a number of debates to be had—in this Parliament, in Brussels, and sometimes in Government—before we finally reach a decision that can be presented to the House. I will always endeavour to ensure that information is given to Committees in a timely way, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that it is better to have the right decision than to have an early decision.

Alan Beith: That is true, but it is better still if, rather than our waiting until the Government have finally formed a view, the support and help of Committees is obtained at an early stage in the process.

Chris Grayling: I entirely accept that. We will try to ensure that we do what we can to supply the right information to Committees in the future.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, made the valuable point that we should be cautious about the issue of jurisdictions. That is what lies behind my concern about measures such as these. It is important to understand that an opt-in is not—as was implied by the hon. Member for Swansea West—a simple process. It is not just about setting an example to the rest of Europe. It is about accepting the jurisdiction of an international court in regard to important areas of law. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), there is no right of appeal following a ruling from the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend also rightly observed that our judiciary are increasingly concerned about the role of international courts. On a number of occasions recently, they themselves have suggested that decisions that should be made in our courts and our Parliament are now being dealt with on the international stage. It is clear that that is causing some discomfort to at least some of them.

Geraint Davies: Will the Justice Secretary confirm that the Government are still negotiating on the issues of children’s rights in courts and legal aid, and that those negotiations have not been stonewalled?

Chris Grayling: We have told our European partners—and will do so again if the House approves the motion tonight—that we will not take part in negotiations on the first and third directives, on the presumption of innocence and on legal aid. We will say up front that we do not intend to opt in, either now or in the future. That is a decision that has been agreed across Government, and one that we do not intend to reverse. We will provide observers for the negotiations, but they will not participate in detailed negotiations. As I said, on the second directive involving children we do not intend to opt in; we will indicate that up front. We will participate in the negotiations in case, although it is unlikely, something emerges that this House may want to consider again, but it remains the Government’s position that we do not expect, nor want, to have to opt into the directive, but we will sit around the table while it is negotiated.
	There is clearly a broader issue here about minimum standards measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) pointed out very articulately, what we must understand is that we have a different legal system from the rest of the European Union. The hon. Member for Hammersmith made the same point. If we accept minimum standards measures, step by step they take away the ability of this Parliament and of our courts to shape our justice system. If we decide on any occasion to opt into such a measure, it is of paramount importance that we understand the implications of doing so.

William Cash: To add to that point, the other member states by and large have written constitutions, while we operate by a process of precedent through the common law. In many respects that would change were we to move to a system that enveloped us within a framework of European Union law, which would change the nature of the decision-making process. As my right hon. Friend so accurately says, this is a huge change because it is about jurisdiction, interpretation and the rights of the individuals who are affected.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I fundamentally disagree with the Commissioner who set out her vision a few days ago for a European common justice area by 2020. I do not believe that is right for this country. I believe there are areas where it is important to collaborate with our partners in fighting international organised crime, but I do not want to see our justice system, which commands respect around the world and brings extensive legal business to London, subsumed into something that is Europeanised. That is why I draw a very clear line, in consideration of European measures, between those that are essential in dealing with the real issues of cross-border crime and those that are about subsuming our system into common processes. I am thinking in particular about the presumption of innocence aspect, which to my mind intrudes clearly into the ways of working in our courts. I am pretty confident that a large part of our judiciary would not wish to see the processes they follow each day shaped by decision making at European Union level.
	I am very clear that I do not want the UK to be part of these measures. I am glad to have received the support I have in the House tonight. I hope that the House will endorse the approach that we are taking to keep us outside the three measures.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings, No. 17633/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, No. 17642/13, a Commission Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, and No. 17635/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings; and agrees with the Government that the UK should not exercise the opt-in to these measures.

Business without Debate

COMMITTEES

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 and 6 together.
	Ordered,

Education

That Chris Skidmore be discharged from the Education Committee and Caroline Nokes be added.

Environmental audit

That Chris Evans be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mike Kane be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITION
	 — 
	The proposed closure of Crown Post Offices in Anglesey (Ynys Môn)

Albert Owen: It is with great pleasure that I present this petition signed by over 3,000 of my constituents. In 2009 Post Office Ltd made it clear that it had no intention to relocate or outsource its services from the two Crown post offices on Anglesey as no other suitable major retail brand existed on the high streets. In the closure programme of sub-post offices, the importance of the Crown offices was highlighted due to their location and integration with other services. This situation has not changed.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the residents of Anglesey,
	Declares that they wish to preserve the Crown Post Office in both Holyhead and Llangefni to retain the safety, convenience and services of this vital resource to the island’s community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons protect both Crown Post Offices from closure and from potential franchising.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001333]

DEFENCE IN SCOTLAND AFTER 2014

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Thomas Docherty: It is a privilege to have secured this important debate. Today is an important landmark for all of us in the United Kingdom as we head towards the referendum—it will take place in exactly six months. In exactly six months’ time, many people here in the Chamber and elsewhere will be knocking on doors, getting out the vote for our fellow Scots as they make a huge and life-changing decision about the future of our country and our nation.
	One great problem we have is that we simply do not have enough information from the nationalists about what a future Scotland would be like in respect of a range of issues, not least defence. Disappointingly, not one Scottish National party Member could be bothered to turn up this evening, despite having had notice of this debate. That might be because they are too scared to come to defend their plans or because they do not yet know what their plans would be in an independent Scotland. I wish briefly to discuss three areas: my constituency, the Rosyth dockyard and the wider west Fife defence footprint; the wider impact on the defence industry across Scotland; and how Scotland would defend itself after a yes vote on 18 September.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very familiar with Scotland and, I am sure, with west Fife. You will know that the Rosyth dockyard is still the largest private employer in west Fife, employing about 2,800 people, the vast bulk of whom are working on the assembly of the two new aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. That has been a long-standing project, one that we are particularly proud of in west Fife; we are the home of the construction of the Royal Navy’s new flagships. I see the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) in her place and, obviously, Portsmouth will be the home of the carriers once they enter service.

Lindsay Roy: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As he will be aware, I was invited to Rosyth by Babcock Marine and witnessed the impressive building of the new aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth. I also saw, in the basin, the shells of seven former nuclear submarines, which still have some contamination. Apparently they are to be dismantled from 2016 onwards, but has he had any indication as to who will bear the financial responsibility for dismantling them and cleaning up the mess?

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose own constituency has a very strong defence footprint with Raytheon, which I might mention later. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the seven decommissioned nuclear hulks, which are lashed against the wall in the basin, as it is unclear whose responsibility they would be if Scotland were independent. My understanding is that if they are determined to be fixed now in Rosyth, they would pass as a liability to the Scottish Government. However, if we believe they are part of the overall movable pool, a fraction of the
	17 decommissioned submarines we have in the UK would be the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Either way, the Scottish Government would be stuck with a clean-up to do and would not know how to go about doing it. My hon. Friend is entirely right to have raised the subject. I hope that we can get some idea from Ministers in the two Governments over the next six months about how such ambiguity might be resolved before the referendum.
	On the broader point about the two carriers, it is obvious that Portsmouth will be their home and the location in which their routine maintenance will be carried out. That is the correct decision. I remember one of the earliest times that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North and I debated that maintenance with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in November 2010. As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who has responsibility for defence procurement, said yesterday at Defence questions, Rosyth is clearly in prime position to provide deep maintenance. Babcock’s business plan is based on that assumption.

Iain McKenzie: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I believe that there will be many such debates over the coming weeks and months about Scotland’s future after the referendum in September 2014. Is he as alarmed as I am by the recent press release by Babcock and the trade unions at Rosyth, which stated that without defence contracts, it would be impossible to sustain Babcock’s presence, and therefore its work force, in Rosyth?

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. He is as perceptive as ever, because I was about to come to that point. Without that deep maintenance work, the Babcock business case is destroyed. Last week, Babcock’s industrial unions warned that 800 job losses would result. I pay tribute to the full-time convener, Raymond Duguid—one of my hon. Friend’s constituents—for his work and for the productive way in which the work force at Rosyth dockyard engage with the management. They are all on the same side; they all want to serve the customer, the nation and the Royal Navy. They have a shared concern, which it is important to highlight. Again, it is disappointing that not one SNP Member could be bothered to turn up for this important debate.
	The work force and management have made it clear that there will be significant job losses, which will place the long-term viability of the yard under threat. I hope that the Minister will set out the Ministry of Defence’s vision for the future of the defence industry in West Fife. In the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, there is a BAE Systems plant at Hillend, which makes parts for the Typhoon aircraft. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) has Raytheon, a significant employer, in his constituency.
	I commend the work of the House of Commons Defence and Scottish Affairs Committees, which have both looked at the implications of independence. Both Committees’ reports are useful, worthy and thoughtful pieces of work, and it is fair to say that they have reached similar conclusions. Many high-tech, specialised electronics companies such as BAE Systems and Raytheon
	would not be able to stay in Scotland unless specific guarantees were provided to the rest of the UK Government. So far, it has been clear from the SNP’s utterances that that is unlikely to happen. At a time when we are all pulling together and trying to secure, for example, new orders for the Typhoon in the middle east—we still hold out hope that we will also be successful in India and in Europe—it is slightly bizarre that the SNP is not engaging in a positive manner to help to secure those jobs in Scotland.
	We cannot possibly discuss industrial strategy in Scotland without talking about the future of the Clyde. Incredibly difficult decisions had to be made, as part of the terms of business agreement, about the future of Portsmouth and the Clyde. I know how passionate people on the south coast are about the region’s, I think, 400-year history of shipbuilding, but the decision has been made to build the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigate on the Clyde. We are seeing that arrangement developing, with the process of ensuring that Scotstoun, in particular, is ready to take on the work.
	The SNP’s White Paper is a load of fiction. It says not only that an independent Scotland would buy the Type 26 but that the rest of the United Kingdom would build its Type 26s in Scotland.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Is he aware that the commercial sector has expressed considerable interest in building ships in Portsmouth? We have proved that we can compete not only with Scotland but with Dubai and with other shipyards around the world. Our shipyard facility and a skilled work force would stand ready to pick up orders for offshore patrol vessels, Type 26s and beyond if Scotland became a foreign country, as we would clearly wish to retain our sovereign capability.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which demonstrates something that the SNP will not acknowledge—namely, that there are and will continue to be alternatives to the Clyde. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that English MPs with shipyards in their constituencies would simply say to the Ministry of Defence, “Go on, give that multi-million pound order to another country, even though we have pressing needs in our own yards.” There is no way that English MPs would do that, be they in Plymouth, Appledore, Portsmouth or Barrow—or, indeed, on Tyneside. And how could we forget the Jarrow yard or the Birkenhead yard? There is no shortage of space for these construction contracts.

Iain McKenzie: Speaking as one who represents a constituency on the banks of the Clyde, I can tell my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) that there were no celebrations there when Portsmouth was losing out and the Clyde was gaining. There is a connection and a deep sympathy between all the shipbuilding industries around the country.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was not a day of celebration. There are genuine ties between the various yards. They share a common union body—the Confederation of Shipbuilding and
	Engineering Unions—and they campaign together to protect and sustain this crucial industry, which is in our national interest.

Jim Shannon: Harland and Wolff in Belfast does not have the capacity to produce ships, as it has diversified into the oilfield sector, but there is capability there. We very much want to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to place on record that we pledge our yards to be used in the service of the Royal Navy.

Thomas Docherty: There is obviously no shortage of firms to carry out this work. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) is in the Chamber. He was gracious enough to take me along to see a company in his constituency, Vector Aerospace. He has been a real champion of that company. It is inconceivable to me that the British Army and the Royal Air Force would continue to send Chinook parts to Perthshire for repair, if Perthshire were to be in a foreign country, when they could have the work done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I say again that it is disappointing that not one SNP Member is here tonight. Perhaps that is because they are fearties, but they should be here to make their case, and to explain to the people of Scotland what the implications of independence are for defence and the defence industries.
	I have said quite a lot about manufacturing, so I shall turn now to the so-called Scottish defence force. Over the past 12 to 18 months we have seen the SNP changing its position and rewriting documents. It went from being outside NATO and completely opposed to it, to being a full member, without even having to apply. It then changed its policy again. When the Minister for Transport and Veterans, Keith Brown, appeared before the Defence Committee last July, he admitted that an independent Scotland would have to apply for NATO membership. That was then flatly contradicted by Alex Salmond, who continues to put around the lie that somehow Scotland would automatically be a member of NATO. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what he thinks about those contradictory positions. SNP Ministers say one thing when they are under oath in front of a Select Committee and then say something completely different when they are safely back in Scotland and they think that no one is paying attention to them.
	There are some serious concerns about the ability of Scotland to defend itself given the SNP’s plans. It was quite clear from when the Defence Committee took evidence that, in order to maintain simple air defences, Scotland would need, according to Air Marshal Iain McNicol, the equivalent of two squadrons of Typhoon aircraft. The SNP now claims that it would inherit a number of aircraft from the Royal Air Force. That is based on the argument, with which I have a huge amount of sympathy, that that is what happened in Czechoslovakia when it broke up. A proportion of aircraft went to the Czech Republic and a proportion to the Slovak Republic. Even under the most generous of assumptions—the Ministry of Defence has done the figures and they were used by the Secretary of State last year—Scotland would have only eight Typhoon aircraft. It would have to spend more than £1 billion purchasing additional Typhoons.
	The same is true with regard to the Royal Navy. Again, the SNP is making contradictory statements. It claims in its party policy that it wants a squadron of submarines, yet in its White Paper, there was no mention of submarines. Perhaps like many other SNP policies, that has sunk beneath the waves.
	The SNP has also claimed that it would need 15,000 regular personnel. Although the Minister and I may disagree on aspects of the strategic defence and security review, I am sure that we agree on the correct way of approaching a defence policy. One needs to set out strategic aims and threats, what posture needs to be adopted and what personnel and equipment numbers are needed to effect that posture. Then one needs to put together the money. What the SNP has done is to pick a random figure of 15,000. At no point has it provided any coherent explanation as to what it is, nor has it explained from where the troops would be recruited. Where would these air men and women, sailors and soldiers come from? The SNP claims that it is entitled to those members of the armed forces who have some sort of Scottish qualification.

Iain McKenzie: Is the SNP not also claiming that, in order to keep the same level of work force at Faslane, it would base the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in that area—putting all its eggs in one basket? How defensive is that?

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The SNP proposes to put its joint headquarters command for the three services at Faslane. The best and most optimistic estimate that the Defence Committee was able to make of the total headcount of the conventional Navy that the SNP would create under the joint headquarters command is that it would only, at most, provide approximately 4,500 personnel at Faslane, compared with the 8,000 that is there now. That force will get bigger over the next year as the Astute-class moves to Faslane. The SNP’s numbers just do not add up.
	The other point that has not been touched on is training. If we were to assume that within the 15,000 head count, about 8,000 to 10,000 were Army, the SNP would need approximately 200 officer cadets every year to populate its officer corps.
	Sandhurst takes only 120 international students a year at the moment and the SNP is silent on where its officers will be trained. Are we going to see “MacSandhurst” in the Glen? Are we going to see “MacDartmouth” or “MacCranwell”? Will the SNP come back to the Minister after independence begging for places at Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell? Those are the unanswered questions.
	Finally, on the issue of cap badges, the SNP claims that it is entitled to all the Scottish regiments but has never quite explained what it means by a Scottish regiment. The 1st Foot and the Blues and Royals might disagree, but arguably the oldest regiment in the British Army is the Coldstream Guards. Coldstream is a fine Borders town only a few miles from England from which General Monck set off to restore the monarchy in 1660, hence its name being given to the guards unit formed in the new army. It would appear that the SNP would argue that it is entitled to the Coldstream Guards, except that the Coldstream Guards predate the British Army as they date from 1660. I know that I am in a
	room of knowledgeable historians who would all be able to tell the House that they were part of King Charles II’s English army. Even at that simple level, the SNP has no basic understanding of what a Scottish regiment is.
	What happens to all those Scots who are serving in other regiments? They might not wish to come back to the Scottish defence force. What will happen to those men and women who are serving in so-called Scottish units who are not lucky enough to be from Scotland? What will happen to our fine Fijians? We have the finest Fijians in the Scottish battalions. Would they be forced to adopt the Scottish defence force?
	In short and in conclusion, the SNP’s plans are incoherent, they do not add up and they are dishonest. The SNP owes it to the people of Scotland to set out the reality before 18 September so that people can make a choice. Tonight, young, brave Scotsmen and women are serving in the armed forces around the world—in Afghanistan, the Falklands or elsewhere. I hope we will always remember how proud they are to serve our nation.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for introducing it. He made his case very clearly. When I became aware of the debate, I sought the permission of the hon. Gentleman and of the Minister to contribute.
	There can be few Members in the Chamber who do not know where I stand on independence. My designation says it all: I am a Democratic Unionist, with a greater emphasis on the Unionist as I am proud to be a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Together we are stronger and better as a nation. The four nations come together as one. I always think of that when I walk into Central Lobby and see the four flags: we are all together, four flags and four nations as one, in Central Lobby in the centre of the greatest democratic process in the world, here at Westminster. It gives me great pride to walk through the door and have the opportunity and privilege of seeing that.
	I am very fond of my Scottish colleagues. They know that, and I agree with them on many issues. I am disappointed that they are not in the Chamber tonight. I wish they were, as I would be keen to hear their views.
	My ideal applies also to the Scottish question and the reason is clear: the Union is in all our best interests, including that of the Scots. Many issues have been flagged up that emphasise the difficulties with independence, and the one that is of great concern to me is defence, and in this debate we are considering defence in Scotland after 2014. Although I support the devolution of most matters and believe that the regional Assemblies should have power, I have always held that decisions on matters of national security should be taken at the national level. That is why they are taken in Westminster.
	The second world war showed the difficulties of a nation sharing a land border with a nation that is not on its side. We in Northern Ireland know that better than any others. The actions of the Republic of Ireland in its neutral stance to Germany were not helpful to those suffering the Belfast blitz bombings. The strength of mainland Great Britain lies in the fact that it is an island, united in core principles and values, and defence is a major part of that.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Jim Shannon: The first time I was interrupted in that way I thought that my chance to speak was over, but now I know the process and I am pleased to be able to continue my contribution.
	I do not always agree with Government reports or policies. I agree with many things, but not with everything, as right hon. and hon. Members will be aware. But I read with great interest the report “Scotland analysis: Defence”. It states:
	“In the event of a vote in favour of leaving the UK, in the eyes of the world and in law, Scotland would become an entirely new state. If Scotland were to become independent, therefore, it would leave the UK and its existing arrangements, and would need to establish its own defence arrangements as part of forming a new state.”
	That is a frightening aspect, not simply for the rest of the United Kingdom but for Scotland itself.
	As I said earlier, I am fond of the Scottish nationalists. I have affection for them and we agree on many things. We disagree intensely on their position on independence. I am always reminded of the film “Braveheart” in which that well-known Scotsman Mel Gibson plays the lead role. Let us be honest: if it were as bad as it was then, with the English stealing their land, burning down their houses and abusing their ladies, I would be the first to jump to their support. But it is not. We are in a different situation. We are in a democratic process, and we as nations together in the United Kingdom are better for being united.
	With that mind, I will read a further section of the report. Forgive me if hon. Members are fully aware of the information, but it is important to repeat it so that the people of Scotland can be fully aware of all the real issues and not get caught up in the dream that independence will mean that they can pick and choose how involved they will be in defence, in the currency or in any other matter. There seems to be that perception. The hon. Gentleman made it clear. The Scottish nationalists are not here to put forward their case and we wonder why. Is it because they are not sure what their case is? Is it because they do not want to deal with the head over heart issues, of which this is one?
	The report states:
	“Scotland is home to major bases for critical UK military capabilities and other essential facilities, including for military training and testing. As at 1 July 2013, there were 11,100 Regular Armed Forces (7.5% of the UK total) and 4,000 MOD civilian personnel (7.6% of the UK total), from across the UK and beyond, at around 50 MOD sites throughout Scotland, as well as an estimated 2,200 trained Volunteer Reserves (10.3% of the UK total). There are also an estimated 11,500 Cadets (85% of the UK total).”
	I am honoured to speak in this House on behalf of the Northern Ireland cadets. It continues:
	“Although defence reforms mean that the overall number of Regular Armed forces personnel across the UK is decreasing, by 2020 the number in Scotland is set to increase to 12,500 (8.8% of the UK total).” —
	a rise of 1.3%.
	“And as part of the UK Government’s plans to increase the size of the Reserve Forces, by 2018 there will be an estimated 4,250 trained volunteer Reserves in Scotland (about 12% of the UK total).”

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to my colleague from the neighbouring constituency of Strangford for taking an intervention. The hon. Gentleman will know that a number of companies from Northern Ireland provide essential maintenance for the MOD in Scotland. Has he had an opportunity to speak to any of the senior management of those companies to ascertain their views about the proposed ridiculous decision to become independent in Scotland?

Jim Shannon: I have not had that opportunity personally, but I have through third parties. I know that my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), has businesses in her constituency that have clearly told her and their staff that Scottish independence would have a detrimental impact on them, and some of my constituents work for those companies as well.
	The report continues:
	“On current UK Government plans, by 2020 Scotland will be home to one of three Royal Navy main bases, including all its submarines, one of the British Army’s seven Adaptable Force Brigades and one of three Royal Air Force fast jet main operating bases.”
	That is the role Scotland can play in defending the whole of the United Kingdom— Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland: all of us.

Iain McKenzie: I know that the hon. Gentleman spoke in the recent debate on cyber-security. We know about the many hard, physical aspects of defence, but cyber-security is a growing area of concern that is consuming more and more time, resources and money. He spoke at great length and with great knowledge about the subject, so I wonder whether he would care to devote a part of his speech to it today and underline the cost implications and the implications for a country that would not have the same level of defence in its interactions in the cyber world.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Cyber-security is clearly an important area. Many Members contributed to that debate, and I am no more knowledgeable on the matter that anyone else, but I understand its importance and the potential costs. There is a bigger picture, and I feel that the Scottish National party has unfortunately not taken it into consideration in its quest for the referendum. It must do so very honestly and very quickly.
	The defence issue for Scotland is massive. To me, it fully underlines the need for the Union. However, personnel issues must be considered. On a more personal level, the Army base at Ballykinler, just outside my constituency, is due to lose some of its regiment, with the knock-on effect that 300 jobs in the area are at stake. However, the Ministry of Defence has assured me that the base will remain open. That follows lobbying by Members of Parliament and the local council. If that was to be replicated across Scotland, how many jobs would be lost? If Northern Ireland was to become independent—thank the Lord it will not, so long as the people of Northern Ireland have the decision to stay in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—those jobs would be lost.
	My parliamentary aide has a friend who is based in Scotland in the Scots Guards, along with her husband. She has already said that, should Scotland become
	independent, she will transfer to England, because she feels that there would not be the capacity for job security and that the uncertainly for her and her husband would be too great. That is what my constituents are telling me. That will be replicated many times if Scotland becomes independent. There is the potential that it will lose many good men and women who are seasoned officers. How much will that weaken its defences?
	In conclusion, we are very fortunate to have the contribution that our Scots brothers and sisters make in all the services—the Air Force, the Royal Navy and the British Army. We are very pleased to have them as comrades in arms. What is very clear, however, is this: we are better together, safer together and stronger together, and together we must remain.

Andrew Murrison: I start by paying tribute to the men and women of the British armed forces, particularly those serving overseas, and particularly, if non-Scots will allow me on this occasion, the men and women from Scotland who serve so gallantly in our armed forces, as they have done since the Act of Union and as I firmly believe they will continue to do.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on giving us this opportunity to debate defence in Scotland after 2014, when he and I sincerely hope it will be, as it is now, part of the United Kingdom. I also congratulate him on his timeliness in holding the debate, because, as he said, today is exactly six months from the date on which the referendum will be held—an extremely important date for all of us in the United Kingdom, whether we live in Scotland or not.
	May I lay my cards on the table? Despite my Scottish antecedents, I had the disadvantage of being born English, and I represent an English constituency, but I am British first, and I believe passionately in the Union that has made this country so much greater than the sum of its parts. I cannot begin to think of a country that is split up in the way envisaged by the Scottish National party, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that that party did not see fit to be represented this evening at all.
	The issue of defence is particularly important for the people considering how to vote, because, unlike things such as free child care, it is most certainly not devolved. In other words, this issue will be determined on 18 September. It is the prime duty of the Government of any state to safeguard national security and to protect their people from threats internal and external. That is why pages 232 to 251 of the Scottish Government’s 649-page tome are so very disappointing—19 pages of disappointment.
	Her Majesty’s Government believe that people in Scotland will choose to stay part of the UK. We will continue to argue the case for the close-knit family that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From a defence perspective, the arguments for Scotland remaining in the UK are overwhelming. The UK’s armed forces are counted among the world’s very best. Our integrated approach to defence and security provides the best possible protection for all parts of the UK, underpinning our international influence and sustaining our defence industry. I want Scotland to
	continue to contribute to, and benefit from, the full range of UK defence capabilities, including our extensive defence engagement, which project influence, make us a force for good, and maintain competitive advantage.

Lindsay Roy: May I assure the Minister that I am not scaremongering but posing a question put to me by people who work at Raytheon, a company that employs 600 people in my constituency? They are asking whether there is an issue about the confidential contracts that are engaged in between the parent company in the USA and Raytheon UK, and whether there is any risk to, or uncertainty about, their jobs in the future.

Andrew Murrison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. In fact, I have been flicking through the press cuttings for today which had something to say on the matter. The Scottish edition of The Times has the headline, “Businesses get ready to leave in event of independence vote”. The Scottish edition of the Daily Mail says, “An uncertain future is our biggest worry, say business bosses”. The Herald says, “Business leaders ‘concerned about uncertainty over referendum’”. I do not think it needs me to say what that all adds up to. Taken with the remarks of business leaders from all sectors currently, and I suspect increasingly as we approach 18 September, it means that our concerns over jobs in Scotland in the event of independence are mounting almost by the day. I know that the hon. Gentleman, as the Member of Parliament for an area that depends heavily on our defence industry, will feel extremely strongly about this and will continue to make representations on it over the next six months.

Thomas Docherty: Further to that point and the point the Minister made about that work of fiction, the Scottish White Paper, was he as surprised as I was that the only mention of Rosyth in the whole document was as a possible future supplementary naval base? There is no mention at all about ship maintenance. Would he care to speculate on why the SNP would do that?

Andrew Murrison: I have given up speculating about the SNP, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is somewhat odd, even in the simple 19 pages on defence in this remarkable 649-page document, that Rosyth should feature so poorly. That is truly remarkable and I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are entitled to draw their own conclusions from that.
	I believe that Scotland should continue to benefit from every pound spent on UK defence. We of course have one of the largest budgets in the world at £33.5 billion this year. The £2.5 billion grudgingly conceded by Mr Salmond for both defence and security simply pales in comparison.
	As part of the UK, Scotland will continue, as it has done for 300 years, to play an integral part in all aspects of UK defence. As UK citizens, Scots will continue to be employed in world-class armed forces, and Scotland will continue to be home to critical high-end military capabilities across the defence piece. In fact, on our current plans, the defence presence in Scotland will increase over the coming years. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out, by 2020 Scotland will be home to one of the Royal Navy’s main bases, including all of its submarines—I will come back
	to submarines in a moment—as well as to one of the British Army’s seven adaptable force brigades and one of three Royal Air Force fast-jet main operating bases.
	At a time when the overall number of our regular armed forces personnel is necessarily decreasing, the number based in Scotland is set to increase from about 11,000 now to 12,500 by 2020, which is about 8.8% of the UK total.
	UK defence generates economic benefits for communities throughout Scotland though jobs, contracts and support services. Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde is the biggest employment site in Scotland, with about 6,700 military and civilian jobs, increasing to 8,200 by 2022.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has eloquently described the importance of defence to the east coast, and every constituency in Scotland has people whose livelihoods depend on defence and that are subsequently at risk.
	Scotland, as part of the UK, will continue to benefit from a strong, established global network of international relationships and alliances that would be unavailable to an independent Scotland, at best for years and possibly indefinitely.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his strong and robust response to the debate. During her intervention on me earlier, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) outlined the importance of defence contracts to many businesses in Northern Ireland as well. The ripples caused by independence would affect not just Scotland, but Northern Ireland.

Andrew Murrison: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who has anticipated my next point, which is that the UK has geopolitical influence that few states of a similar size can match. That influence would be put at risk in a dramatic way were this country to be split in two. Together, undoubtedly we punch well above our weight. Apart, we would certainly be diminished, with substantial geopolitical consequences that would reach far beyond these shores. It is interesting that many of our partners are watching this situation very closely indeed—even more closely, I have to say, than many of our own citizens on these islands—because they fully understand what is at stake in September.
	Because we are together, the UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member of the European Union and a founder member of NATO. It is central to the “Five Eyes” community. The benefits for Scotland’s defence industry as part of the UK are especially important to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, as he has pointed out.
	The scale of our defence spending is a key factor in sustaining those indigenous defence industries. The Ministry of Defence spent more than £20 billion with UK industry in 2011-12. Over the 10 years from 2012-13, it will spend almost £160 billion on new equipment and data systems. That spending sustains a substantial industrial footprint in Scotland, from complex warships to the latest high-tech innovations in aerospace engineering, defence electronics and electro-optical systems in companies based throughout the country, employing thousands of people in high-skill and relatively high-salary positions.
	Many of our prime contractors—Babcock, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Selex ES, Thales, Raytheon and QinetiQ—have sites in Scotland. The defence sector in Scotland employs about 12,600 people, with 4,000 jobs in Scottish shipyards being directly linked to the aircraft carrier programme alone.
	The SNP may be able to marshal arguments in support of independence, beyond its cynical offer of free child care, but even its ex-parliamentary candidate Colonel Stuart Crawford asked rhetorically whether the Scottish Government White Paper would provide at least some answers. In the event, we were left little the wiser from its 649 pages.
	John Swinney’s secret admission that his defence budget would be less than the £2.5 billion asserted by the SNP is interesting, but let us generously assume that that is the figure. That would be for both defence and security, presumably including intelligence and cyber, but it is only about 7% of the UK’s combined budgets for defence, intelligence and cyber, and it is significantly less than Scotland’s population share—if we are counting, which we are not.
	It is not clear what level of security and protection the £2.5 billion would provide, but it would for sure be less than Denmark’s or Norway’s. The SNP plans are simply unaffordable, and I can only conclude that it would end up with its starting point of 7,500 soldiers. So much for restoring all Scotland’s historic regiments. Confounding Colonel Crawford’s hopes, the White Paper seems to offer more questions than answers.
	It is clear that an independent Scottish state would have to wait in line for membership of the international organisations that the Scottish Government have hitherto believed Scotland would automatically join. If it wished to be a member of NATO, all 28 member states would need to agree unanimously to its accession, which is hardly likely, given the Scottish Government’s attitude to the strategic nuclear deterrent that lies at the very heart of the alliance’s strategic concept. It seems unlikely that the “Five Eyes” community would really bang on the door of a newly independent Scotland.
	Companies based in an independent Scottish state would no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK chose to place, or to compete domestically, for national security reasons under article 346. All our complex warships are designed and built within the UK for reasons of national security, so as a foreign country, Scotland would no longer be eligible. Where companies in Scotland could continue to compete, they would be bidding in a cut-throat international market dominated by major economic powers. The sustainability of the defence industry in Scotland and the thousands of jobs that depend on it would therefore be cause for considerable concern.
	The Scottish Government have shown a little bit of leg in the 19 pages on defence in their 649-page doorstopper, but there is no link between their defence wish list and the budget proposed to cover it. Their £2.5 billion—remember that that is our generous assessment—would be nowhere near enough to pay for their stated requirement and, like the hon. Gentleman, who is eagle-eyed, I notice that the figure does not cover their 2012 plans for conventional submarines, which were not mentioned in the following year’s White Paper. The Scottish Government say that they would have expensive platforms, such as Type 26 frigates, Typhoon jets and maritime patrol
	aircraft, and presumably the wherewithal to process and act on the data that MPAs generate, and would continue to operate all current major military bases, but the sums do not add up.
	That is not to suggest that an independent Scotland could not build a defence force. Of course it could. However, what the Scottish Government are saying about what that force would be like is simply not credible—it is incredible. Whatever defence force an independent Scotland could develop, it would not come close to replicating the level of defence and security that comes from being part of the UK, which defends the country not on a regional basis, but as a whole.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister is making a compelling speech. I do not know whether he has had the chance to look at the evidence of Air Vice-Marshal Nicholl to the Defence Committee. He said that if he were to start again as a young, aspiring pilot, he would not wish to join a separate Scottish air force, because he would not have the same opportunities that he had in the Royal Air Force. It was a Scot who said that. Does the Minister agree that a problem for the SNP is how it would recruit people? Why would people want to serve in the services if there were such restricted opportunities?

Andrew Murrison: We have to imagine what Scotland’s defence force would look like with £2.5 billion or less. It would be very small indeed. It follows that the high-tech, high-end capability to which I have referred will simply not be available in Scotland. It seems inconceivable that the sort of men and women who join our armed forces would be attracted to such a proposition. I fear that the
	air vice-marshal is correct in his assertion. I hope that people in Scotland who are tempted by a career in the armed forces are not faced with the conundrum of whether to join a Scottish defence force or the armed forces of the United Kingdom. That would be a great pity for them and, potentially, a huge waste of talent. Traditionally, Scotland has provided some of the very best people in our armed forces. The loss to defence in this country in the event that Scotland went independent would be felt not least in the manpower and capabilities that those men and women provide.
	Scotland’s defence and the UK’s best interests will be served by a strong no vote on 18 September. I suspect that the SNP knows that and would dearly like to park defence and security, so that it can focus on things like free child care, which it already has the power to grant, even if that will be pre-empted by tomorrow’s statement. I do not think that it is by chance that there are no SNP Members here tonight. They are concerned about their defence and security offer to the voters of Scotland on 18 September and would like to talk about something else. I do not intend to let the Scottish Government get away with their obfuscation and litany of half-truths on one of the major determinants of nationhood. My helpful advice to the SNP—I do try to be helpful where I can—is to admit that Scotland’s defence and its defence industry would be a casualty of independence and, in the six months remaining to it, to campaign on something else.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.